On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:39:03 +0100, Dave Plowman <dave.sound@argonet.co.uk>
wrote:

> And of course most went over to composite at 'about' the same time as
> stereo was mooted

Mooted and implemented are not entirely the same things are they Dave?
Colour TV was mooted in the 50s but not implemented until the late 60s.
Stereo TV may have been mooted around the early 70s, but it was implemented
until the late 80s/early 90s.
You are deliberately comparing apples with oranges to suit you own
ill-conceived ends.

> Err, digital audio? Haven't you heard of that? ;-)

Now, you're just being patronising.
Embedded audio is the last thing you want in an edit suite, and a lot of
other places IMHO. Of course it has its uses, but this is not one of them.

>> This means you have to double everything - jackfield space, patch leads,
>> connectors on equipment, circuitry within equipment etc. etc. On news OB
>> vehicles for example, where space/weight/power is at an absolute
>> premium, you do not want all this overhead.
> 
> Wonder why anyone used components, then? They certainly found the room for
> that.

It never did get much acceptance, relatively speaking, because of all the
hassle.

> If you've been following closely, you might have noticed that no-one is
> talking about stereo dialogue.

Why not? Because it doesn't fit *your* mould?

> BTW, I'd suggest you get some experience of stereo recording

I think that is rather unlikely, seeing as I almost never need to use it.

> In a news situation, where you'd have the time and inclination to
> actually use an FX mic, then this would be the only stereo source.

That's the whole point. You almost never do.

> That's certainly true. Which is why I'm talking about only adding stereo
> FX at the edit to cover the cracks, but it's heavy going trying to get
> this across to some.

Why have stereo FX if everything else is mono. I really do not see the
point. It is much easier to cover a mono. crack than a stereo one.

>  The costs of processing stereo these days with modern post gear are zero.
> Apart from some heavy staff retraining ones, though, by the look of it.

Well that is certainly a major factor don't you think? And with the
deskilling of news that is happening, how do you think that is going to
happen?