In article <slrnbkg2v1.b1h.abuse@news.pr.network>,
   Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> 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.

 Being pedantic, Baird demonstrated colour. And his system was about as
far away as early colour was from the eventual broadcast PAL. 

 Ever seen the 'original' IO colour cameras? I've actually worked with
them...

> 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.

Excuse me? C-format machines were already stereo capable - indeed one
option was to lose a track to give Dolby A on the main pair. So stereo was
very much on the horizon *before* components became popular for mainstream
TV. That this country was slow to implement stereo in TV is just one of
those things, but anyone with any sense would have specified stereo in a
components edit suite. Of course, plenty didn't have any sense...

> > 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.

Who said it has to be embedded? I'm just trying to counter your one
circuit for vision, two for stereo, argument which is patent nonsense.

> >> 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.

 We live in different worlds, then. The company I used to work for was
fully components including local news.

> > 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?

Care to give any examples of stereo dialogue pick up in TV or film used
anywhere in the world today?

> > 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.

Then, IMHO, you're not that qualified to comment on its problems.

> > 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.

But an atmos track is added after?

> > 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's standard drama technique. And dubbing is dubbing.

> It is much easier to cover a mono. crack than a stereo one.

Err, you don't have stereo cracks if the location is mono...

> >  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?

 Perhaps you should be aiming to increase your skills to make yourselves
more difficult to replace?

-- 
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

    Dave Plowman     dave.sound@argonet.co.uk     London SW 12
     RIP Acorn