10 March 1994
Norman McLeod
It seems to me that there are four main strands to the business of sound reproduction. There is the world of music recording: studios, vast mixing desks, sophisticated recording media. There is the arena of public address systems and sound reinforcement, stacks of speakers, amps and more vast desks. There is the world of broadcasting and programme distribution, radio, TV, video, cable, satellite. And finally, there is the consumer industry, whatever people have at home to listen to the final product.
About twenty-five years ago, when I first became aware of these distinctions, there was much more common ground between them than there is now. For one thing, there was an important UK industry making a local contribution in all four arenas. But more than that, when it came to setting standards and striving for progress, there was a measure of agreement about how to proceed.
Each discipline recognised the same authorities, and talked much the same language, so that engineers and designers could move from one area to another without feeling out of place. Not any more. People in each area go to different exhibitions, read different magazines, inhabit a technological landscape which is very much their own territory.
Take loudspeakers. List the most respected equipment in the context of (a) recording studio monitors, (b) PA stacks, (c) broadcasters' monitors or (d) domestic hi-fi speakers. Maybe some BBC monitors overlap (c) and (d), maybe Messrs. Tannoy pop up more than once, but there will not be much overlap these days. Does this matter? Is separate development good for the end product?
Well, I think it might speed up the learning curve if we had more cross-fertilisation of ideas. At the moment, for example, people in the hi-fi industry have a very low opinion of the standards of most broadcasting. At the same time, the broadcasters fall about laughing at the people who spend 199 on a set of 'oxygen-free copper' audio connecting leads with gold-plated plugs each end in the belief that this is justified in terms of improved sound quality. (Me - I don't laugh. I want to be introduced to people who have that sort of money to spend...)
But it is true that many broadcasts do sound pretty disgusting on a good hi-fi system, when compared with the original recording in all its glory. And it is also true that real hi-fi (often British made) continues to set standards against which your Dixons music centre hardly passes muster.
But no-one is listening. Remember that nominations for the (a) best and (b) worst audio quality you have ever experienced from the radio are always accepted. Any station - present or past - can qualify. Fax your comments to 0273 700 526 any time.
Local radio and television is the one thing which cable can offer which satellite services manifestly can't, yet Nynex has so far proved quite impervious to suggestions that the current slide-and-caption service should be replaced with something more lively and interesting. Yet a good local channel could actually boost cable take-up. What is the matter with these cable people?
Any readers wishing to comment on what I have said are welcome to call me on 01 273 684 172 or send e-mail to normac@fastnet.co.uk
Copyright NJ McLeod 1995