We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the "music" 
that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's getting to 
the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is being 
said because of the high level of tonal effects.

Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted in 
stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the other, this 
way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.


Smolley

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, "Smolley" 
wrote:

>We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the "music" 
>that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's getting to 
>the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is being 
>said because of the high level of tonal effects.
>

I agree wholeheartedly.

>Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted in 
>stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the other, this 
>way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.

I wish you hadn't. I have no way of adjusting channel balance either on
my hi-fi or on my television.

However, as your request will probably be ignored, along with every
other viewer request, I don't suppose it matters.

-- 
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

In news:lejd4418i7r7rrb57bg5cnko8nu3gl4kiu@4ax.com,
Alan White  typed, for some strange, 
unexplained reason:
: On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, "Smolley" 
: wrote:

[snip]

: >Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted
: >in stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the
: >other, this way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.
:
: I wish you hadn't. I have no way of adjusting channel balance either
: on
: my hi-fi or on my television.

Hmm. Every TV I've seen with stereo sound has this facility. It may be 
buried in the config menus somewhere, but it's there. If your hi-fi hasn't 
got it then with all due respect its fi isn't very hi ;-)

: However, as your request will probably be ignored, along with every
: other viewer request, I don't suppose it matters.

You're probably right.

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6ao1dsF38qoenU1@mid.individual.net...
> In news:lejd4418i7r7rrb57bg5cnko8nu3gl4kiu@4ax.com,
> Alan White  typed, for some strange,
> unexplained reason:
<snip>
>
> : However, as your request will probably be ignored, along with 
> every
> : other viewer request, I don't suppose it matters.
>
> You're probably right.
>

"Probably", I would say it's all but a certainty!... :~((

Ivor Jones wrote:
  If your hi-fi hasn't
> got it then with all due respect its fi isn't very hi ;-)

The opposite applies. You pay more not to have them ;-)

My audio system ain't even got tone controls ... or a graphic liquidiser

:-)

-- 
Adrian C

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:24:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

>If your hi-fi hasn't 
>got it then with all due respect its fi isn't very hi ;-)

AVI amplification, ATC loudspeakers...

-- 
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

The message 
from "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> contains these words:

> In news:lejd4418i7r7rrb57bg5cnko8nu3gl4kiu@4ax.com,
> Alan White  typed, for some strange, 
> unexplained reason:
> : On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, "Smolley" 
> : wrote:

> [snip]

> : >Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted
> : >in stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the
> : >other, this way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.
> :
> : I wish you hadn't. I have no way of adjusting channel balance either
> : on
> : my hi-fi or on my television.

> Hmm. Every TV I've seen with stereo sound has this facility. It may be 
> buried in the config menus somewhere, but it's there. If your hi-fi hasn't 
> got it then with all due respect its fi isn't very hi ;-)

> : However, as your request will probably be ignored, along with every
> : other viewer request, I don't suppose it matters.

> You're probably right.

> Ivor



In the very unlikely eventuality of them actually putting music on one
channel and commentary on the other then what is the likelihood of one
programme having music on the left and another having it on the right?

But I would have thought widely separated music and commentary would be
even more irritating than loud music.



MB

"Alan White"  wrote in message 
news:lejd4418i7r7rrb57bg5cnko8nu3gl4kiu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, "Smolley" 
> wrote:
>
>>We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the "music"
>>that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's getting 
>>to
>>the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is being
>>said because of the high level of tonal effects.
>>
>
> I agree wholeheartedly.
>
>>Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted in
>>stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the other, 
>>this
>>way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.
>
> I wish you hadn't. I have no way of adjusting channel balance either on
> my hi-fi or on my television.
>
> However, as your request will probably be ignored, along with every
> other viewer request, I don't suppose it matters.




either the original post is deliberately exxagerating, or he has hearing 
problems - to say that the dialogue is drowned out is clearly not true.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

The dog from that film you saw wrote:
> "Alan White"  wrote in message
> news:lejd4418i7r7rrb57bg5cnko8nu3gl4kiu@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, "Smolley" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the
>>> "music" that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs,
>>> it's getting to
>>> the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what
>>> is being said because of the high level of tonal effects.
[]
> either the original post is deliberately exxagerating, or he has
> hearing problems - to say that the dialogue is drowned out is clearly
> not true.

Not so; my hearing is at least average (better I think), but I would agree 
that unnecessary sound is excessive, on a proportion (only) of programmes.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver                  |  Tel. +44 1634 203298

Essex home SOLD, I hope! (See http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/)

Smolley wrote:
> Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted
> in stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the
> other, this way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.

What a ridiculous idea. I listen to most of my TV on headphones - so the
left and the right are separate. How do you suggest I go about mixing
the two channels together so I can at least have proper mono sound? Have
you ever tried listening to two different things down the two channels
at the same time?

"Hyphen" <khyle@REMOVEMYkhyle.org.ukSPAM> wrote in message 
news:8a5jh5-6hm.ln1@fforchio.khyle.net...

<snip>
> How do you suggest I go about mixing
> the two channels together so I can at least have proper mono sound?

Switch the output to mono? Duh!

":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:Ra-dnVn3D5H2cdvVnZ2dnUVZ8srinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Hyphen" <khyle@REMOVEMYkhyle.org.ukSPAM> wrote in message 
> news:8a5jh5-6hm.ln1@fforchio.khyle.net...
>
> <snip>
>> How do you suggest I go about mixing
>> the two channels together so I can at least have proper mono sound?
>
> Switch the output to mono? Duh!

Always assuming that your amplifier etc has a mono switch. Mine doesn't. I 
can vary the balance of L to R but I can't mix those two outputs, adjusted 
with the balance knob, into a mono signal.

In article , The dog from that film you 
saw wrote:
> >>We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the "music"
> >>that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's getting 
> >>to
> >>the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is being
> >>said because of the high level of tonal effects.
[...]
> either the original post is deliberately exxagerating, or he has hearing 
> problems - to say that the dialogue is drowned out is clearly not true.

I have to disagree with you. I don't have hearing problems but I too find the 
constant ear-battering to which we are subjected very annoying, and I know I 
am not alone. Excessively loud music and effects, often completely 
unnecessary, is probably the commonest criticism of broadcast programmes I 
ever hear from anybody. It seems nobody on television is capable of imparting 
information of any kind without a constant noise that has nothing to do with 
the subject matter, as if we were trying to read a book while the people in 
the next room were having a party. Yet another example of "style over 
content", in some cases possibly to divert attention from the lack of content.

Rod.

"Mortimer"  wrote in message 
news:kpSdnbVbhMqwbdvVnZ2dnUVZ8sKlnZ2d@plusnet...
> ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
> news:Ra-dnVn3D5H2cdvVnZ2dnUVZ8srinZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Hyphen" <khyle@REMOVEMYkhyle.org.ukSPAM> wrote in message 
>> news:8a5jh5-6hm.ln1@fforchio.khyle.net...
>>
>> <snip>
>>> How do you suggest I go about mixing
>>> the two channels together so I can at least have proper mono 
>>> sound?
>>
>> Switch the output to mono? Duh!
>
> Always assuming that your amplifier etc has a mono switch.
<snip>

What has the amp got to do with things, TV sets can almost always be 
set to either stereo or mono output.

":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:wvqdnWBZ-uvjbtvVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Mortimer"  wrote in message 
> news:kpSdnbVbhMqwbdvVnZ2dnUVZ8sKlnZ2d@plusnet...
>> ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
>> news:Ra-dnVn3D5H2cdvVnZ2dnUVZ8srinZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "Hyphen" <khyle@REMOVEMYkhyle.org.ukSPAM> wrote in message 
>>> news:8a5jh5-6hm.ln1@fforchio.khyle.net...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> How do you suggest I go about mixing
>>>> the two channels together so I can at least have proper mono sound?
>>>
>>> Switch the output to mono? Duh!
>>
>> Always assuming that your amplifier etc has a mono switch.
> <snip>
>
> What has the amp got to do with things, TV sets can almost always be set 
> to either stereo or mono output.

As far as I can tell, my Panasonic TV (TX-28PK2/E) which is about six years 
old doesn't have any balance or mono/stereo control on the Sound menu. It's 
possible to adjust level of L+R internal speakers, but this doesn't affect 
the headphone output, and there isn't a mono/stereo switch to combine the L 
and R at the chosen levels.

What is needed is for sound mixers to set the level of dialogue or voiceover 
to music and effects correctly so the M+E doesn't drown the speech. It 
doesn't take much M+E to make it *difficult* to concentrate on speech.

A good rule is "speech OR M+E, not speech AND M+E"!

In article ,
	Smolley wrote:
> We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the "music" 
> that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's getting to 
> the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is being 
> said because of the high level of tonal effects.

It's probably a consequence of surround sound processing. If they're
monitoring on a 5.1 system, with either Dolby Surround or its
equivalent, the speech will come out of the centre speaker and the
music out of the front side speakers. This does help intelligibility,
especially as the viewer can change the relative levels of centre and
sides.

Of course, that doesn't help the poor viewers with simple stereo, or a
single mono speaker.

-- 
Paul Martin

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:48:08 +0100, MB <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>In the very unlikely eventuality of them actually putting music on one
>channel and commentary on the other then what is the likelihood of one
>programme having music on the left and another having it on the right?

Clearly the only solution is for all TV channels to be transmitted in
Dolby 5.1. :-)

(That's apart for viewers on BBC HD where only the .1 will be
transmitted due to insufficient funding.)
--

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:24:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

>Hmm. Every TV I've seen with stereo sound has this facility. It may be 
>buried in the config menus somewhere, but it's there.

Found it. I've only ever used the 'Sound' menu to turn off the TV
loudspeakers and had forgotten it was there.
-- 
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

In article ,
   Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
> : I wish you hadn't. I have no way of adjusting channel balance either
> : on
> : my hi-fi or on my television.

> Hmm. Every TV I've seen with stereo sound has this facility. It may be 
> buried in the config menus somewhere, but it's there.

If it works on the line output it's a poor design. 

> If your hi-fi hasn't 
> got it then with all due respect its fi isn't very hi ;-)

Why do you need a balance control? Are you using an odd pair of speakers
or something?

-- 
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Smolley  wrote:
> Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted in
> stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the other,
> this way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.

'We' have recommended? WTF are 'we'?

Most will probably prefer their music in stereo if they've gone to the
expense of a stereo TV.

-- 
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:54:52 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

> What has the amp got to do with things, TV sets can almost always be 
> set to either stereo or mono output. 

You clueless tosser. How can you get a controllable mix? You can't, cos
virtually every telly sold has no facility for doing so.
In any case, we run a stereo TV service, not a dual mono service.

The problem, as always, is with the dubbing mixers and the producers.

Oh, and don't bother with the standard reply insult. I've heard it before.

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, Smolley  wrote:

> Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted in 
> stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the other,

Er, that wouldn't make it stereo would it?

> this way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.

Bullshit. You're a clueless troll.

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4e7hv.7jh.abuse@news.pr.network...
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:54:52 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> 
> wrote:
>
>> What has the amp got to do with things, TV sets can almost always be
>> set to either stereo or mono output.
>
> You clueless tosser. How can you get a controllable mix? You can't, cos
> virtually every telly sold has no facility for doing so.
> In any case, we run a stereo TV service, not a dual mono service.
>
> The problem, as always, is with the dubbing mixers and the producers.
>
> Oh, and don't bother with the standard reply insult. I've heard it before.


You clearly are a non technical oik, that's why you have heard the standard 
reply mant times before.

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6ao1dsF38qoenU1@mid.individual.net...
> In news:lejd4418i7r7rrb57bg5cnko8nu3gl4kiu@4ax.com,
> Alan White  typed, for some strange,
> unexplained reason:
> : On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, "Smolley" 
> : wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> ((snip))
> : However, as your request will probably be ignored, along with every
> : other viewer request, I don't suppose it matters.
>
> You're probably right.
>
> Ivor
>

It probably doesn't matter, but I thought it would be very easy solution for 
people with stereo televisions to reduce the nuisance content that has crept 
into educational type programs over the last few years.

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4e7kq.7jh.abuse@news.pr.network...
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, Smolley  wrote:
>
>> Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted in
>> stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the other,
>
> Er, that wouldn't make it stereo would it?
>
>> this way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.
>
> Bullshit. You're a clueless troll.


Are you intuitively dim or did you train for it ?

:Jerry: wrote:
> Switch the output to mono? Duh!

AFAICT mono mode is where it just ignores the left channel and pipes the
right to both ears...  :-\

On 4 Jun, 17:13, "Smolley"  wrote:
> We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the "music"
> that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's getting to
> the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is being
> said because of the high level of tonal effects.

It's a shame that all the digital TV delivery systems were put into
place without thinking this common problem through.

It would be possible to provide the dialogue as a separate stream from
the music and effects, and allow the user to balance them. It doesn't
need to be complicated - just put a normal/half/off switch on the
music and effects channel.

It would also be possible to provide a separate switchable audio
description (only) stream, with level metadata to dynamically mix it
into the other streams.

Most importantly, standardise the system Europe-wide, and mandate it
on _all_ STBs Europe-wide (under disability discrimination laws). That
way, implementation becomes standard on all silicon and the cost
approaches zero.

FWIW Dolby AC-3 already incorporates most of this, though I _think_
it's rarely implemented in full. Having the dialogue on the centre
channel (which is normal practice) makes it trivial for consumer
equipment to boost that by 6dB to aid intelligibility, if required.


> Once again we have recommended that documentary programs transmitted in
> stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the other, this
> way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.

That's a bad idea, for the various reasons already mentioned in this
thread, and plenty of others.

Cheers,
David.

"Hyphen" <khyle@REMOVEMYkhyle.org.ukSPAM> wrote in message 
news:8njkh5-54d.ln1@fforchio.khyle.net...
> :Jerry: wrote:
>> Switch the output to mono? Duh!
>
> AFAICT mono mode is where it just ignores the left channel and pipes 
> the
> right to both ears...  :-\

Then as long as the narration is on the right side....

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
news:slrng4e7hv.7jh.abuse@news.pr.network...
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:54:52 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>> What has the amp got to do with things, TV sets can almost always
>> be
>> set to either stereo or mono output.
>
> You clueless tosser.

Try reading the thread tosser, the person I was replaying to wanted
both the music and narration in both ears, mono would give that.

<snip irrelivance>

>
> The problem, as always, is with the dubbing mixers and the
> producers.
>

No one said otherwise!

> Oh, and don't bother with the standard reply insult. I've heard it
> before.

Pity that you don't do something about it then, defending style over
content just make people like you look the over paid worthless cretins
you so plainly are...

wrote in message 
news:92248f4a-0020-42fb-930b-79e772c356ef@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Jun, 17:13, "Smolley"  wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Once again we have recommended that documentary programs 
>> transmitted in
>> stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the 
>> other, this
>> way the customer can adjust the channel levels to suit.
>
> That's a bad idea, for the various reasons already mentioned in this
> thread, and plenty of others.
>

But in the absence of anything else being done...

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4e7kq.7jh.abuse@news.pr.network...
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:13:12 +0100, Smolley  
> wrote:
>
>> Once again we have recommended that documentary programs 
>> transmitted in
>> stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the 
>> other,
>
> Er, that wouldn't make it stereo would it?
>

Your point being what exactly, documentary audio doesn't need to be 
stereo...

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > If your hi-fi hasn't 
> > got it then with all due respect its fi isn't very hi ;-)
> 
> Why do you need a balance control? Are you using an odd pair of speakers
> or something?

A balance control only requires a very cheap component but it adds to the 
perceived value of hi-fi equipment by increasing the knob-count. Otherwise 
it's pointless.

Rod.

In article , Smolley wrote:
> It probably doesn't matter, but I thought it would be very easy solution for 
> people with stereo televisions to reduce the nuisance content that has crept 
> into educational type programs over the last few years.

Since it would require the cooperation of the broadcasters to implement it, 
wouldn't it be easier (though about as likely to happen in reality) for the 
broadcasters simply to reduce and/or remove the background music and effects?

Nobody would be confused by the need to adjust any extra controls, nobody would 
have to settle for mono sound, and we'd all be able to hear what the presenters 
were saying.

Rod.

In article , 
Davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
> > We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the "music"
> > that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's getting to
> > the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is being
> > said because of the high level of tonal effects.
> 
> It's a shame that all the digital TV delivery systems were put into
> place without thinking this common problem through.
> 
> It would be possible to provide the dialogue as a separate stream from
> the music and effects, and allow the user to balance them. It doesn't
> need to be complicated - just put a normal/half/off switch on the
> music and effects channel.

Even better, it doesn't need to be there at all. Broadcasting existed for 
several lifetimes before any of the fancy facilities offered by modern digital 
techniques became practical realities, and it managed perfectly well without 
them. The technique is simply to recruit as sound balancing engineers 
intelligent people who do not have cloth ears and to train them properly.

Rod.

In article ,
	davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
> It would also be possible to provide a separate switchable audio
> description (only) stream, with level metadata to dynamically mix it
> into the other streams.

Some say this has already happened... (Freeview)

-- 
Paul Martin

In article ,
	:Jerry: wrote:

> "Hyphen" <khyle@REMOVEMYkhyle.org.ukSPAM> wrote in message 
> news:8njkh5-54d.ln1@fforchio.khyle.net...
>> :Jerry: wrote:
>>> Switch the output to mono? Duh!
>>
>> AFAICT mono mode is where it just ignores the left channel and pipes
>> the right to both ears...  :-\

> Then as long as the narration is on the right side.... 

In Germany, on some programmes the left channel is normal sound, and
the right channel is audio description. I've got a version of "Dinner
for One" that does this.

-- 
Paul "Same procedure as every year" Martin

"Paul Martin"  wrote in message 
news:slrng4fmkq.j62.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk...
> In article ,
> :Jerry: wrote:
>
>> "Hyphen" <khyle@REMOVEMYkhyle.org.ukSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:8njkh5-54d.ln1@fforchio.khyle.net...
>>> :Jerry: wrote:
>>>> Switch the output to mono? Duh!
>>>
>>> AFAICT mono mode is where it just ignores the left channel and 
>>> pipes
>>> the right to both ears...  :-\
>
>> Then as long as the narration is on the right side....
>
> In Germany, on some programmes the left channel is normal sound, and
> the right channel is audio description. I've got a version of 
> "Dinner
> for One" that does this.
>

...and? This is the UK, any broadcaster can easily swap audio channels 
if their standard is different, it's  a bit like suggesting the UK 
should adopt NTSC because so much of our programmes now come from the 
US!

What I'm saying (and I suspect others) is, I would prefer there to be 
no music added for nothing but production style reasons but if there 
has to be it should be a viewer selectable option (there are people 
who *do* have hearing problems that *do* have problems with sound 
effects and music masking the more important audio narration - often 
forcing them to use the sub title text option, which in turn can mask 
the lower part of the screen...

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in message 
news:VA.000003ff.024dc6b4@removethisbit.beeb.net...
> In article , The dog from that film 
> you
> saw wrote:
>> >>We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the 
>> >>"music"
>> >>that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's 
>> >>getting
>> >>to
>> >>the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is 
>> >>being
>> >>said because of the high level of tonal effects.
> [...]
>> either the original post is deliberately exxagerating, or he has hearing
>> problems - to say that the dialogue is drowned out is clearly not true.
>
> I have to disagree with you. I don't have hearing problems but I too find 
> the
> constant ear-battering to which we are subjected very annoying, and I know 
> I
> am not alone. Excessively loud music and effects, often completely
> unnecessary, is probably the commonest criticism of broadcast programmes I
> ever hear from anybody. It seems nobody on television is capable of 
> imparting
> information of any kind without a constant noise that has nothing to do 
> with
> the subject matter, as if we were trying to read a book while the people 
> in
> the next room were having a party. Yet another example of "style over
> content", in some cases possibly to divert attention from the lack of 
> content.




his argument was that the dialogue was drowned out.
are you agreeing with that? - are you saying you are unable to understand 
what people are saying? - if so.......




-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"The dog from that film you saw"  
wrote in message news:6aqihuF3746b3U1@mid.individual.net...
>
<snip>
>
> his argument was that the dialogue was drowned out.
> are you agreeing with that? - are you saying you are unable to 
> understand what people are saying? - if so.......
>

What are *you* saying, do you really expect us to believe that people 
do not suffer from hearing problems? Never mind the personal 
experiences of those on this group, think about the wider audience...

In article ,
   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

> "The dog from that film you saw"  
> wrote in message news:6aqihuF3746b3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > his argument was that the dialogue was drowned out.
> > are you agreeing with that? - are you saying you are unable to 
> > understand what people are saying? - if so.......
> >

> What are *you* saying, do you really expect us to believe that people 
> do not suffer from hearing problems? Never mind the personal 
> experiences of those on this group, think about the wider audience... 

It is a well known physiological fact that as one grows older it become
more difficult to sort out speech from music in this situation.  I remember
being told this over 30 years ago.  Whether this counts as a hearing
problem or is simply a symptom of old age, I don't know - but if it 
affects all older people then the current BBC 'youngsters' ought to pay a
bit more attention to it.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article ,
   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> > his argument was that the dialogue was drowned out.
> > are you agreeing with that? - are you saying you are unable to 
> > understand what people are saying? - if so.......
> >

> What are *you* saying, do you really expect us to believe that people 
> do not suffer from hearing problems? Never mind the personal 
> experiences of those on this group, think about the wider audience... 

The poor audio chain in many domestic TVs can often upset the balance
between speech and music. And then there's the psychological aspect. If
you don't like music under dialogue it will always be too loud.

-- 
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4faac867bbdave@davenoise.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> The poor audio chain in many domestic TVs can often upset the 
> balance
> between speech and music. And then there's the psychological aspect. 
> If
> you don't like music under dialogue it will always be too loud.
>

So the facts seem to point to the fact that programme makers should be 
avoiding music were the narrative is the more important, or at least 
not mix the two together.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> The poor audio chain in many domestic TVs can often upset the balance
> between speech and music. And then there's the psychological aspect. If
> you don't like music under dialogue it will always be too loud.
> 

And the generational class aspect ....

'Radio 1' alike Drum'n'Bass background music/noise

  - versus -

'Radio 3' alike Vivaldi background music/tranquility

Not being able to fathom out lyrics, never mind dialog is a common 
complaint of the later set... but - "it ain't b there hearing. Iz it!"..

:-p

-- 
Adrian C

In article ,
   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
> news:4faac867bbdave@davenoise.co.uk...
> <snip>
> >
> > The poor audio chain in many domestic TVs can often upset the 
> > balance
> > between speech and music. And then there's the psychological aspect. 
> > If
> > you don't like music under dialogue it will always be too loud.
> >

> So the facts seem to point to the fact that programme makers should be 
> avoiding music were the narrative is the more important, or at least 
> not mix the two together. 

It's a question of taste at the end of the day - they obviously like it.
Rather like Top Gear - loads of people hate it yet it's got the largest
audience of any prog of that type. You can't please all of the people all
of the time.

-- 
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.  

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" 
 writes
>The poor audio chain in many domestic TVs can often upset the balance 
>between speech and music.

Woah there!

Any dubbing mixer worthy of the name will check his/her mix on a squawk 
box for compatibility.

Of course, if that's not being done properly...

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK                                      www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                     www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TD'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in message 
news:VA.00000403.00ea5e3a@removethisbit.beeb.net...
> In article , Smolley wrote:
>> It probably doesn't matter, but I thought it would be very easy solution 
>> for
>> people with stereo televisions to reduce the nuisance content that has 
>> crept
>> into educational type programs over the last few years.
>
> Since it would require the cooperation of the broadcasters to implement 
> it,
> wouldn't it be easier (though about as likely to happen in reality) for 
> the
> broadcasters simply to reduce and/or remove the background music and 
> effects?
>
> Nobody would be confused by the need to adjust any extra controls, nobody 
> would
> have to settle for mono sound, and we'd all be able to hear what the 
> presenters
> were saying.
>
> Rod.
>

There probably is an agreement for a percentage of musician/radiophonic 
workshop input to add noise to the program material.

":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:AMmdndBg9slmg9XV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
>
> "The dog from that film you saw"  wrote 
> in message news:6aqihuF3746b3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> his argument was that the dialogue was drowned out.
>> are you agreeing with that? - are you saying you are unable to understand 
>> what people are saying? - if so.......
>>
>
> What are *you* saying, do you really expect us to believe that people do 
> not suffer from hearing problems?


as i said, only people with hearing problems who want to pretend they have 
perfect hearing and it's all down to the tv show.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

In article ,
   SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:
> >The poor audio chain in many domestic TVs can often upset the balance 
> >between speech and music.

> Woah there!

> Any dubbing mixer worthy of the name will check his/her mix on a squawk 
> box for compatibility.

Unfortunately 'squawk' boxes ain't identical to all TV sets. That's why
they were called by some 'average quality monitor'. And the Aurotone that
many use sounds like no TV I've ever heard...  

> Of course, if that's not being done properly...

As I said at the end of the day it's a question of taste - unless you
think the dubbing mixer set out to drown the dialogue. And without hearing
the prog in question - which wasn't even mentioned - it's impossible to
even give an opinion.

-- 
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"charles"  wrote in message 
news:4faac7ed35charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...


> It is a well known physiological fact that as one grows older it become
> more difficult to sort out speech from music in this situation.  I 
> remember
> being told this over 30 years ago.  Whether this counts as a hearing
> problem or is simply a symptom of old age, I don't know - but if it
> affects all older people then the current BBC 'youngsters' ought to pay a
> bit more attention to it.



i'm 35 yet can still hear the mosquito device - guess i've just been careful 
and not put the walkman on too loud.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"The dog from that film you saw"  
wrote in message news:6aqtmsF393ogoU1@mid.individual.net...
>
<snip>
>
> i'm 35 yet can still hear the mosquito device - guess i've just been 
> careful and not put the walkman on too loud.
>

Or worked in a noisy industry, not been subjected to an infection that 
caused damage to the ear, not older than you are etc. etc...

"The dog from that film you saw"  
wrote in message news:6aqtl4F38s32bU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
> news:AMmdndBg9slmg9XV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
>>
>> "The dog from that film you saw"  
>> wrote in message news:6aqihuF3746b3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> his argument was that the dialogue was drowned out.
>>> are you agreeing with that? - are you saying you are unable to 
>>> understand what people are saying? - if so.......
>>>
>>
>> What are *you* saying, do you really expect us to believe that 
>> people do not suffer from hearing problems?
>
>
> as i said, only people with hearing problems who want to pretend 
> they have perfect hearing and it's all down to the tv show.
>

Err! How is that even closely relevant to the complaint/issue, if 
people were really doing as you suggest wouldn't they be asking for 
more music to be mixed with the narrative voice-over, OTOH those who 
accept that they have a hearing problem (be that medical or due to 
older age) will be asking for less?

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4faacff246dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
>> news:4faac867bbdave@davenoise.co.uk...
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > The poor audio chain in many domestic TVs can often upset the
>> > balance
>> > between speech and music. And then there's the psychological 
>> > aspect.
>> > If
>> > you don't like music under dialogue it will always be too loud.
>> >
>
>> So the facts seem to point to the fact that programme makers should 
>> be
>> avoiding music were the narrative is the more important, or at 
>> least
>> not mix the two together.
>
> It's a question of taste at the end of the day <snip>

No, it's a matter of 'accessibility' - the same reason why subtitles 
are offered.

On 5 Jun, 12:09, Roderick Stewart 
wrote:
> In article ,
>
> Davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
> > > We have sent another letter to the BBC about the loudness of the "music"
> > > that drowns out the narrative on documentary type programs, it's getting to
> > > the point of silliness where a viewer (listener) cannot hear what is being
> > > said because of the high level of tonal effects.
>
> > It's a shame that all the digital TV delivery systems were put into
> > place without thinking this common problem through.
>
> > It would be possible to provide the dialogue as a separate stream from
> > the music and effects, and allow the user to balance them. It doesn't
> > need to be complicated - just put a normal/half/off switch on the
> > music and effects channel.
>
> Even better, it doesn't need to be there at all. Broadcasting existed for
> several lifetimes before any of the fancy facilities offered by modern digital
> techniques became practical realities, and it managed perfectly well without
> them. The technique is simply to recruit as sound balancing engineers
> intelligent people who do not have cloth ears and to train them properly.

Whilst there are excesses in mixing background music and effects
today, fixing this doesn't address the main problem.

OfCom commissioned research at the University of Salford to compare
the perceptions of "young" people with "normal" hearing against those
of "old" people who were typically slightly hearing impaired. The
hearing impaired group were still able to carry out normal one-to-one
conversation (some with hearing aids IIRC).

They presented videos of various content, and adjusted the level of
the dialogue and background separately. It turned out that the
preferred balance was different for the two groups - the older group
preferred the background sounds to be reduced by about 6dB, whereas at
that level the younger group judged the sound as being wrong/faulty.

New guidelines were produced after this study to help the situation,
but the _solution_ is as I have proposed: allow listeners/viewers to
knock the background music and effects down by ~6dB if they wish.

Cheers,
David.

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:01:17 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

>>> So the facts seem to point to the fact that programme makers should 
>>> be
>>> avoiding music were the narrative is the more important, or at 
>>> least
>>> not mix the two together.
>>
>> It's a question of taste at the end of the day <snip>
> 
> No, it's a matter of 'accessibility' - the same reason why subtitles 
> are offered. 

There you are then. The solution has been staring you in the face all the
time. If you're a bit mutton, stick the subbys on. Obvious innit?

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4i66v.2fv.abuse@news.pr.network...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:01:17 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> 
> wrote:
>
>>>> So the facts seem to point to the fact that programme makers 
>>>> should
>>>> be
>>>> avoiding music were the narrative is the more important, or at
>>>> least
>>>> not mix the two together.
>>>
>>> It's a question of taste at the end of the day <snip>
>>
>> No, it's a matter of 'accessibility' - the same reason why 
>> subtitles
>> are offered.
>
> There you are then. The solution has been staring you in the face 
> all the
> time. If you're a bit mutton, stick the subbys on. Obvious innit?

No, subtitles are no use to those who can't read (for what ever 
reason), accessibility means making something accessible to as many as 
possible, not making it inaccessible whole sections...

Anyway, no one in their right mind would find it acceptable to (say) 
mask the last night of the proms with extraneous sounds of (say) steam 
trains or jet planes passing-by, why do some believe that it's 
acceptable to mask the sounds of steam trains or jet planes etc. with 
music?

In article , :Jerry: wrote:
> Anyway, no one in their right mind would find it acceptable to (say) 
> mask the last night of the proms with extraneous sounds of (say) steam 
> trains or jet planes passing-by,

Don't give them ideas. The air horns and party poppers are bad enough.

:-)

Rod.

In article ,
   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> > There you are then. The solution has been staring you in the face 
> > all the
> > time. If you're a bit mutton, stick the subbys on. Obvious innit?

> No, subtitles are no use to those who can't read (for what ever 
> reason), accessibility means making something accessible to as many as 
> possible, not making it inaccessible whole sections...

Right. Let's make all progs suitable for the deaf and blind. Nothing like
catering for minorities after all.

-- 
*What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4fab48b686dave@davenoise.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> Right. Let's make all progs suitable for the deaf and blind. Nothing 
> like
> catering for minorities after all.
>

As daft as it sounds, you quite probably should be, I can't remember 
if broadcasting has been allowed an exemption from the various 
disability rights legislation...

Doesn't both the BBC and Ch4 make transcripts available for the type 
of programming being discussed already, they certainly offer 
subtitles?

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" 
 writes
>In article ,
>   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>> > There you are then. The solution has been staring you in the face
>> > all the
>> > time. If you're a bit mutton, stick the subbys on. Obvious innit?
>
>> No, subtitles are no use to those who can't read (for what ever
>> reason), accessibility means making something accessible to as many as
>> possible, not making it inaccessible whole sections...
>
>Right. Let's make all progs suitable for the deaf and blind. Nothing like
>catering for minorities after all.

Would it seem unreasonable to expect that TV, in the nature of it being 
a visual medium, might just be aimed at those that can bloody well see 
it.

I'm reminded of that fiasco a few years ago in which some "inclusive" 
company was training a blind TV director.

-- 
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:14:27 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

> What are *you* saying, do you really expect us to believe that people 
> do not suffer from hearing problems? Never mind the personal 
> experiences of those on this group, think about the wider audience... 

What about the blind or hard of seeing? We don't seem to cater for them by
reducing them size of captions and credits.
I can barely read sport score captions these days they are so small.
The BBC ones have a real hard-to-read quality about them because of the
odd font.
To coin a phrase, we need a back-to-basics approach to the whole production
process.

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:56:51 +0100, Smolley  wrote:

> You clearly are a non technical oik

Hardly. You know fuck all about what I know or am.
You come on here with a throwaway email account and probably a made up name
and start speaking in a tone as though you own broadcasting... "we have
requested..." and the like. Who is "we"? The Royal one?

> that's why you have heard the standard reply mant times before. 

I was talking about Jerry, who is also a clueless tosser, who usually issues
cutting retorts such as "talking about yourself again".

> Are you intuitively dim or did you train for it ? 

I'm just bringing myself down to your level. I know, shocking isn't it?

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:11:10 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

>>> Once again we have recommended that documentary programs 
>>> transmitted in
>>> stereo sound should have speech on one channel and music on the 
>>> other,
>>
>> Er, that wouldn't make it stereo would it?
> 
> Your point being what exactly, documentary audio doesn't need to be 
> stereo... 

God you're thick. If you transmit 2 channels of dissimilar content i.e.
music and effects on one and commentary on the other then that is not
stereo sound.
If you add them together you get mono - you don't get balance control.
You might as well just mono the existing stereo sound to get the same
effect.
What have you achieved? Nothing, except disadvantage those who wanted
to listen to the original in stereo (music is generally accepted as
being better in stereo than mono - at least that's what the last 40+
years evidence has proved) as originally mixed.

What you want cannot be achieved with 2 channels - you need at least 3.
The OP's original assertion is thus bollocks.

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:07:43 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

>>> What has the amp got to do with things, TV sets can almost always
>>> be
>>> set to either stereo or mono output.
>>
>> You clueless tosser.
> 
> Try reading the thread tosser, the person I was replaying to wanted
> both the music and narration in both ears, mono would give that.

You get that now. How does switching to mono in the previously given
scenario give you balance control?

> defending style over content

I wasn't. I was criticising the so called solution which doesn't achieve
anything apart from piss off the majority of the viewers and listeners.

> just make people like you look the over paid worthless cretins you so
> plainly are...

You have no idea what I'm worth or what I'm paid for doing what I do.
How you can form an opinion on that basis beggars belief, but then you
are renowned for you ignorance and stupidity on here.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 12:24:35 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

>> There you are then. The solution has been staring you in the face 
>> all the
>> time. If you're a bit mutton, stick the subbys on. Obvious innit?
> 
> No, subtitles are no use to those who can't read (for what ever 
> reason),

What, we have to cater for the deaf and the blind? Seems like a fundamental
incompatibility with TV if you ask me. Nothing is going to change that.
I really don't see why we should totally fuck up the system for 0.0001% of
the population (that figure's a guess, but probably representative).

> Anyway, no one in their right mind would find it acceptable to (say) 
> mask the last night of the proms with extraneous sounds of (say) steam 
> trains or jet planes passing-by, why do some believe that it's 
> acceptable to mask the sounds of steam trains or jet planes etc. with 
> music? 

You are deliberately clouding the issue now and you know it. I refuse to
rise to any more of your trolling.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:07:36 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) 
wrote:

>> > There you are then. The solution has been staring you in the face 
>> > all the
>> > time. If you're a bit mutton, stick the subbys on. Obvious innit?
> 
>> No, subtitles are no use to those who can't read (for what ever 
>> reason), accessibility means making something accessible to as many as 
>> possible, not making it inaccessible whole sections...
> 
> Right. Let's make all progs suitable for the deaf and blind. Nothing like
> catering for minorities after all.

Some would say this has happened already. A lot of programmes are better
with the sound off and your back to the screen.
Presumably :Jezzer: and his cronies would like more of them. At least there
is no discrimination there (*) and that is what matters most ain't it?

* Of course there is - you are discriminating against the intelligent and
discerning. Discrimination is part of life for everybody, you'd better get
used to it.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:16:11 +0100, :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

>> Right. Let's make all progs suitable for the deaf and blind. Nothing 
>> like
>> catering for minorities after all.
> 
> As daft as it sounds, you quite probably should be,

As Gordon might say, "Fuck me, fucking political correctness ought to be
fucking outlawed".

All this so called accessibility costs real money, and it's the law of
diminishing returns.
An example: the traffic lights at a T junction on my way to work were
're-engineered' a few years ago - it took 'em about 18 weeks despite saying
it would be done in 12 (God knows why it takes even that long in the first
place) - and has full provision for pedestrian barriers and push button
signalling. I've never yet seen anyone anywhere near there as it's not the sort
of place people walk. There are only 2 pavements on all the roads instead of
the expected 5, and one of those is on the far side of the T.
What was the point? Especially as local authorities are always screaming they
haven't got money to repair the potholes in the roads which affect far more
people.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:26:01 +0100, Tony Quinn  wrote:

> I'm reminded of that fiasco a few years ago in which some "inclusive" 
> company was training a blind TV director.

How about touchscreen panels to be operated by blind people? I kid you not.
I hate to think how much time and money that has and still is costing.

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4is46.2vk.abuse@news.pr.network...

<snip>
> To coin a phrase, we need a back-to-basics approach to the whole 
> production
> process.

Indeed, one where content is King and 'style' a lousy last under any 
other consideration.

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4itph.2vk.abuse@news.pr.network...
<snip>
>
> What, we have to cater for the deaf and the blind?
>
> You are deliberately clouding the issue

Actually it's you who is trying to cloud the issue. Try reading the OP 
again...

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4ith9.2vk.abuse@news.pr.network...
<snip>

> What have you achieved?

Allow people hear the frecking point of the programme, the narrative, 
without having their hearing bombarded by pointless and irrelevant 
audio effects and 'music'...

In article <wic54HSpMXSIFw+A@tqvideo.co.uk>,
   Tony Quinn  wrote:
> In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" 
>  writes
> >In article ,
> >   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> >> > There you are then. The solution has been staring you in the face
> >> > all the
> >> > time. If you're a bit mutton, stick the subbys on. Obvious innit?
> >
> >> No, subtitles are no use to those who can't read (for what ever
> >> reason), accessibility means making something accessible to as many as
> >> possible, not making it inaccessible whole sections...
> >
> >Right. Let's make all progs suitable for the deaf and blind. Nothing like
> >catering for minorities after all.

> Would it seem unreasonable to expect that TV, in the nature of it being 
> a visual medium, might just be aimed at those that can bloody well see 
> it.

> I'm reminded of that fiasco a few years ago in which some "inclusive" 
> company was training a blind TV director.

but I do know a very successful blind radio producer.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4iv3q.360.abuse@news.pr.network...

<snip>
>
> * Of course there is - you are discriminating against the 
> intelligent and
> discerning. Discrimination is part of life for everybody, you'd 
> better get
> used to it.

So lets discriminate against those who want music with everything, 
after all if you want music you can always turn the radio or the CD 
player on....

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng4ivsu.360.abuse@news.pr.network...

<snip rant>
> What was the point? Especially as local authorities are always 
> screaming they
> haven't got money to repair the potholes in the roads which affect 
> far more
> people.

Because a certain female PM, back in the 1980s decided that if any LA, 
LEA etc. should dare to have an under-spend at the end of the 
financial year it was obvious that they had to much money, so what 
happens now, every penny gets spent or allocated (for large long term 
projects) meaning that should any non planed work crop up - especially 
near the end of the FY - there is no money left unallocated for that 
year meaning that pot hole the size of a bucket goes un-repaired... 
:~(

In message , charles 
 writes
>In article <wic54HSpMXSIFw+A@tqvideo.co.uk>,
>   Tony Quinn  wrote:
>> In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
>>  writes
>> >In article ,
>> >   :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>> >> > There you are then. The solution has been staring you in the face
>> >> > all the
>> >> > time. If you're a bit mutton, stick the subbys on. Obvious innit?
>> >
>> >> No, subtitles are no use to those who can't read (for what ever
>> >> reason), accessibility means making something accessible to as many as
>> >> possible, not making it inaccessible whole sections...
>> >
>> >Right. Let's make all progs suitable for the deaf and blind. Nothing like
>> >catering for minorities after all.
>
>> Would it seem unreasonable to expect that TV, in the nature of it being
>> a visual medium, might just be aimed at those that can bloody well see
>> it.
>
>> I'm reminded of that fiasco a few years ago in which some "inclusive"
>> company was training a blind TV director.
>
>but I do know a very successful blind radio producer.

Entirely reasonable - I would never doubt it, in fact I'd be surprised 
if there wasn't such an individual.

-- 
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

In article , Tony Quinn 
 writes
>Entirely reasonable - I would never doubt it, in fact I'd be surprised 
>if there wasn't such an individual.

There are at least two that I know of, one of whom lives down this way.

I think he'd burst out laughing, however, if you suggested the idea of a 
blind TV director (his wife worked in TV news for many years).

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK                                      www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                     www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TD'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/