Inauguration Ceremony

Re: Inauguration Ceremony

Ivan Beaver said:
But with analog it is lot easier to provide a "work around" and to troubleshoot.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

If you don't have time to check your equipment before go time then you are asking for problems no matter if you are transmitting analog or digital.

If you don't understand the equipment/technology then you are asking for trouble when you run into problems no matter if you are transmitting analog or digital.

Jason Lavoie said:
And an analog signal with some static or crackling or even reduced frequency or dynamic range would have still been intelligible enough to keep the spectators there.

Jason
Click to expand...

There are many times throughout history where analog transmissions have gone wrong in way that make it unintelligible/make spectators leave.

I know that the "rah rah lets go back to analog" mentality is in vogue among audio engineers, but come on.... :razz:

Everyone has their preferences, but its not like the next inauguration they are going to run analog because of this. Don't blame the tools. This is operator error.
 
Re: Inauguration Ceremony

Milt Hathaway said:
Ouch:

Poor on-site techs having to deal with a system designer's bad decisions.
Click to expand...

Put phone in flight mode. Connect mini-TRS cable to phone and delay stack. Tune the FM radio of the phone to local FM station that's airing the ceremony live. Possibly adjust delay of whatever mixer/DSP is driving the speakers next to the screen. Voila.

Just a suggestion :)
 
Re: Inauguration Ceremony

Gary J Green said:
Even the audio console has made the news....CNN publishes photo of the "Beyonce Console"...
First on CNN: Inaugural audio boss on Beyoncé: ‘It’s something that Beyoncé should disclose’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Click to expand...
I love one "official" comment I heard the other day "Nobody in the Marine Corp band is in a position to say whether or not they were actually playing" DO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that if I was in the band-I would know if I (and the people around me) were playing or not.

Sounds like typical government coverup to me. And to dismiss the whole thing about WHEN her voice actually sang the song as being not important is just lame.

Then why pay here to show up? Why not just play the recording? Does it really make that much of a difference if she is standing there with her mouth open?

Maybe I am getting old-but "back int he day" using prerecorded material was a SERIOUS NO NO.

I remember seeing printed on ticket stubs (when it started happening-but only on background music tracks-like orchestral parts of rock songs) that "prerecorded material may be used in tonights performance". Hats off to the people who actually have talent and ACTUALLY perform. I kinda like the "warts"-that is part of what makes LIVE music enjoyable!

Getting off soap box now.
 
Re: Inauguration Ceremony

Aw, Ivan... you've been around long enough to know that TV people and government people are all about control.

With pre-recorded tracks the director knows that a) it won't run long; b) the lyrics won't change/be forgotten; c) no issues with RF interference or bad mic cables.

There are plenty of singers that can pull off the Star Spangled Banner, live... the deal is that the VDO guys don't like "live."
 
Re: Inauguration Ceremony

Ivan Beaver said:
I love one "official" comment I heard the other day "Nobody in the Marine Corp band is in a position to say whether or not they were actually playing" DO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that if I was in the band-I would know if I (and the people around me) were playing or not.
Click to expand...

Of course they'd know if they were playing or not, but that's not what the quote seems to be addressing.
Whether or not they're "in a position to say" so could be as simple as them being ordered not to. They are Marines after all.
David.
 
Top Bottom