| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:45:20 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,067 |
The result is: I do need subtitles for most fiction. We (with the wife)
like to watch crime fiction (with an ethnic, historical, couleur locale, >sorie noire, or some other original touch, not the vulgar commercial >spectacular violent shoot'em-all action plagues sent out by Hollywood
and others). I watch German, French, Spanish and English (almost no
Flemish and less so Dutch) productions. Well, most of the time I need >subtitles for the reasons I mentioned.
Others with similar experience?
Some more thoughts about why one would be wanting subtitles.
Perhaps with age I'm getting rather deafish, but:
In previous times many actors had experience in theater, had studied
good diction, and had probably studied good grammar too. They'd be using
a rather declamatory, literary language even for 'informal' but still theatrical dialogues.
Now they're supposed to use Average Joe's idiom and attitude, they
already have only a vague notion of the virtues of good articulation,
and they have to converse in dialectical speech rather than standard language, so following contemporary dialogue can soon become tiresome.
In addition, the sound engineers nowadays have lost balance between sound/music and human voice
(even between music itself, eg, between loud
and soft parts). When both are getting mixed during conversation scenes
it is usually the voices that are drowned in the musical environment, so
it takes a sharp ear to sort out the dialogue from the auditive mess.
The result is: I do need subtitles for most fiction. We (with the wife)
like to watch crime fiction (with an ethnic, historical, couleur locale, s|-rie noire, or some other original touch, not the vulgar commercial spectacular violent shoot'em-all action plagues sent out by Hollywood
and others). I watch German, French, Spanish and English (almost no
Flemish and less so Dutch) productions. Well, most of the time I need subtitles for the reasons I mentioned.
Others with similar experience?
I'm no frequent poster, so let me just repeat a little question from
ages ago but without much result, and that should have some tangent with language perception.
We know all our own voice as we hear it by ourselves. And some (many?)
will know their voice as heard by third parties, eg, from a recorded
track on some good audio source (Argh! Do I sound like that to you
people? Is this my accent? That's awful! etc.)
Has no-one ever thought of, and imagined how to go about it, this interesting (methinks) problem:
a means to modify one's recorded voice in such a way that one would hear
the output and say: Wait! This is exactly how *I* hear my own voice, not
how you guys hear it!
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Some more thoughts about why one would be wanting subtitles.
Perhaps with age I'm getting rather deafish, but:
In previous times many actors had experience in theater, had studied good diction, and had probably studied good grammar too. They'd be using a rather declamatory, literary language even for 'informal' but still theatrical dialogues. Now they're supposed to use Average Joe's idiom and attitude, they already have only a vague notion of the virtues of good articulation, and they have to converse in dialectical speech rather than standard language, so following contemporary dialogue can soon become tiresome.
In addition, the sound engineers nowadays have lost balance between sound/music and human voice (even between music itself, eg, between loud and soft parts). When both are getting mixed during conversation scenes it is usually the voices that are drowned in the musical environment, so it takes a sharp ear to sort out the dialogue from the auditive mess.
The result is: I do need subtitles for most fiction. We (with the wife) like to watch crime fiction (with an ethnic, historical, couleur locale, s|-rie noire, or some other original touch, not the vulgar commercial spectacular violent shoot'em-all action plagues sent out by Hollywood and others). I watch German, French, Spanish and English (almost no Flemish and less so Dutch) productions. Well, most of the time I need subtitles for the reasons I mentioned.
Others with similar experience?
I'm no frequent poster, so let me just repeat a little question from ages ago but without much result, and that should have some tangent with language perception.
We know all our own voice as we hear it by ourselves. And some (many?) will know their voice as heard by third parties, eg, from a recorded track on some good audio source (Argh! Do I sound like that to you people? Is this my accent? That's awful! etc.)
Has no-one ever thought of, and imagined how to go about it, this interesting (methinks) problem: a means to modify one's recorded voice in such a way that one would hear the output and say: Wait! This is exactly how *I* hear my own voice, not how you guys hear it! So that others could know how you hear your own voice... Eh?
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:16:40 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
The result is: I do need subtitles for most fiction. We (with the wife) >>like to watch crime fiction (with an ethnic, historical, couleur locale, >>sorie noire, or some other original touch, not the vulgar commercial >>spectacular violent shoot'em-all action plagues sent out by Hollywood
and others). I watch German, French, Spanish and English (almost no >>Flemish and less so Dutch) productions. Well, most of the time I need >>subtitles for the reasons I mentioned.
Others with similar experience?
My hearing is greatly diminished, but my wife does not have a hearing >limitation.
Our solution is using individual bluetooth earphones (sound on
tv set to "optic" output) instead of the tv's internal speakers.
I can crank up the volume to the level I need without affecting the
volume in her earphones.
We watch many programs on Britbox and Acorn TV (streaming services)
where we enable subtitles when the accents require it.
In addition, the sound engineers nowadays have lost balance between sound/music and human voice (even between music itself, eg, between
loud and soft parts). When both are getting mixed during conversation
scenes it is usually the voices that are drowned in the musical
environment, so it takes a sharp ear to sort out the dialogue from
the auditive mess.
A problem with news subtitles is that it's happening in real time, so
the subtitlers make lots of mistakes, and some of the mistakes change
the meaning in a way that you can't figure out the original meaning.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:16:40 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
The result is: I do need subtitles for most fiction. We (with the wife) >>like to watch crime fiction (with an ethnic, historical, couleur locale, >>sorie noire, or some other original touch, not the vulgar commercial >>spectacular violent shoot'em-all action plagues sent out by Hollywood
and others). I watch German, French, Spanish and English (almost no >>Flemish and less so Dutch) productions. Well, most of the time I need >>subtitles for the reasons I mentioned.
Others with similar experience?
My hearing is greatly diminished, but my wife does not have a hearing >limitation.
Our solution is using individual bluetooth earphones (sound on
tv set to "optic" output) instead of the tv's internal speakers.
I can crank up the volume to the level I need without affecting the
volume in her earphones.
We watch many programs on Britbox and Acorn TV (streaming services)
where we enable subtitles when the accents require it.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:16:40 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
Some more thoughts about why one would be wanting subtitles.
Perhaps with age I'm getting rather deafish, but:
In previous times many actors had experience in theater, had studied
good diction, and had probably studied good grammar too. They'd be using
a rather declamatory, literary language even for 'informal' but still >theatrical dialogues.
Now they're supposed to use Average Joe's idiom and attitude, they
already have only a vague notion of the virtues of good articulation,
and they have to converse in dialectical speech rather than standard >language, so following contemporary dialogue can soon become tiresome.
In addition, the sound engineers nowadays have lost balance between >sound/music and human voice (even between music itself, eg, between loud >and soft parts). When both are getting mixed during conversation scenes
it is usually the voices that are drowned in the musical environment, so
it takes a sharp ear to sort out the dialogue from the auditive mess.
I think I've reported here some years ago on a technical explanation
that I had read for this.
The original recordings were designed for the excellent audio systems
of movie theaters, with music above 100 dB(1). The human
ear can make out human voices easily at (say) 25 dB less than that
volume for the music. However, we play back at home much more
quietly. Unfortunately, that lower volume control reduces 'vocal'
to a dB level that is not readily intelligible. Playing back at high
volume at home presumably fixes that problem, and is one excuse
for wearing earphones.
Playing at the lower volume means that low 'background sounds'
will disappear -- those will be mentioned in the English subtitles
for the Hard-of-hearing.
Makers of DVDs or distributors for TV or streaming did not change
the mix as a regular thing (I think what I read suggested that a
few of them did).
(1) When I went to an IMAX movie some years ago, I was impressed
that I never was disturbed by noise from other patrons, rustling
their candy or whatever. My reckoning (I never read about it) was
that their volume was an extra 15dB above the usual, with white
noise mixed in. - The human ear is not naturally a good judge of
volume, but rather, of distortion. I have a decent stereo that I use
for playback, music, DVD, and TV; when I want to know if the
volume is too high (I live in an apartment), I walk down the hall.
Ifl it does not get noticeably too soft, it is carrying too far.
Balance? There's no such thing any more. The music drown out the
speech - and even animals' communicating sounds in a program about
just those. It's frustrating. I often mute the tv completely to avoid
the music pollution.
Missing the dialogue too? ;)
Another thing: my internet radios and my Tunein app would often start
-also interrupt at moments- a broadcast, with a commercial (in
accordance to the actual station/country) that would be aggressively
louder than the program itself (which might happen to be a commercial itself!).
Yes, but I don't have access to as many languages as you have. Spanish
and French programs are rarely available from our national tv (DR).
Luckily they have begun finding German productions, and those can be
just as fine as the best British ones. I just finished "37 Sekunden"
the other day.
Our Flemish cable TV providers (that is not even satellites) offer
stations from many European countries:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that,
you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound), and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think of it,
and decide to give it a try.
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that,
you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think
of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
With the German satirical "Heute Show", though its subtitles are "live", they are very accurate.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The
person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the
persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that,
you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think
of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
Den 24.08.2025 kl. 10.51 skrev Peter Moylan:
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly
not. The
person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from
inside the
persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
That's a step in the right direction, but the brain tissue in a
live skull no doubt muffles the sound, so no cigar.
Ar an ceathr|| l|i is fiche de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
> On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
>
> >>>> So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
> >>>
> >>> Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
> >>> transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that,
> >>> you'd have to drill holes ...
> >
> >> On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
> >> and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think
> >> of it, and decide to give it a try.
> >
> > Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The
> > person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
> > correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the
> > persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
>
> There is a way to get this right.
> 1. Remove the head from the body.
> 2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
> 3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
I fear the medical ethics board may have objections to your proposed experiment.
Ar an ceathr|| l|i is fiche de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
I fear the medical ethics board may have objections to your proposed experiment.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
That's a step in the right direction, but the brain tissue in a live
skull no doubt muffles the sound, so no cigar.
Just scoop it out. Pas de probl|?me.
Den 24.08.2025 kl. 11.15 skrev Richard Heathfield:
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
That's a step in the right direction, but the brain tissue in
a live skull no doubt muffles the sound, so no cigar.
Just scoop it out. Pas de probl|?me.
That's just the problem. You can't scoop it out if you want to
record the sound that a person hears.
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that,
you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think
of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The
person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the
persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
Den 24.08.2025 kl. 11.15 skrev Richard Heathfield:
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
That's a step in the right direction, but the brain tissue in a live
skull no doubt muffles the sound, so no cigar.
Just scoop it out. Pas de probl|?me.
That's just the problem. You can't scoop it out if you want to record
the sound that a person hears.
On 25/08/25 00:03, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 24.08.2025 kl. 11.15 skrev Richard Heathfield:
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
That's a step in the right direction, but the brain tissue in
a live
skull no doubt muffles the sound, so no cigar.
Just scoop it out. Pas de probl|?me.
That's just the problem. You can't scoop it out if you want to
record
the sound that a person hears.
Easily fixed. Scoop out the brain, insert the microphone, and
then pack
the brain back in again.
On 25/08/2025 01:08, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 25/08/25 00:03, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 24.08.2025 kl. 11.15 skrev Richard Heathfield:
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
That's a step in the right direction, but the brain tissue in a live >>>>> skull no doubt muffles the sound, so no cigar.
Just scoop it out. Pas de probl|?me.
That's just the problem. You can't scoop it out if you want to record
the sound that a person hears.
Easily fixed. Scoop out the brain, insert the microphone, and then pack
the brain back in again.
I /knew/ duct tape would come into this eventually.
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously?-a That was Sunday:
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that,
you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think
of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The
person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the >>> persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
[whoosh mode]-a I don't think this is necessary.-a It's just a matter of tweaking an equalizer until the speaker agrees that the filtered product sounds through the output transducer the way the speaker hears itself
during speech.-a Possibly a very small delay may be needed for some frequencies, but given the size of the skull, I would expect this to be negligible.
The initial settings could be quite close if you had a chart of what frequencies wet bone conducts best.
On 25/08/25 00:03, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 24.08.2025 kl. 11.15 skrev Richard Heathfield:
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
That's a step in the right direction, but the brain tissue in a live
skull no doubt muffles the sound, so no cigar.
Just scoop it out. Pas de probl|?me.
That's just the problem. You can't scoop it out if you want to record
the sound that a person hears.
Easily fixed. Scoop out the brain, insert the microphone, and then pack
the brain back in again.
On 24/08/2025 21:13, Snidely wrote:
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously?a That was Sunday:
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that, >>>>>> you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think >>>>> of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The >>>> person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the >>>> persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
[whoosh mode]a I don't think this is necessary.a It's just a matter of
tweaking an equalizer until the speaker agrees that the filtered product
sounds through the output transducer the way the speaker hears itself
during speech.a Possibly a very small delay may be needed for some
frequencies, but given the size of the skull, I would expect this to be
negligible.
The initial settings could be quite close if you had a chart of what
frequencies wet bone conducts best.
It's people like you that want to suck all the fun out of scientific endeavour.
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that,
you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think
of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The
person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the
persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:16:40 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
Some more thoughts about why one would be wanting subtitles.
Perhaps with age I'm getting rather deafish, but:
In previous times many actors had experience in theater, had studied
good diction, and had probably studied good grammar too. They'd be using
a rather declamatory, literary language even for 'informal' but still
theatrical dialogues.
Now they're supposed to use Average Joe's idiom and attitude, they
already have only a vague notion of the virtues of good articulation,
and they have to converse in dialectical speech rather than standard
language, so following contemporary dialogue can soon become tiresome.
In addition, the sound engineers nowadays have lost balance between
sound/music and human voice (even between music itself, eg, between loud
and soft parts). When both are getting mixed during conversation scenes
it is usually the voices that are drowned in the musical environment, so
it takes a sharp ear to sort out the dialogue from the auditive mess.
I think I've reported here some years ago on a technical explanation
that I had read for this.
The original recordings were designed for the excellent audio systems
of movie theaters, with music above 100 dB(1). The human
ear can make out human voices easily at (say) 25 dB less than that
volume for the music. However, we play back at home much more
quietly. Unfortunately, that lower volume control reduces 'vocal'
to a dB level that is not readily intelligible. Playing back at high
volume at home presumably fixes that problem, and is one excuse
for wearing earphones.
Playing at the lower volume means that low 'background sounds'
will disappear -- those will be mentioned in the English subtitles
for the Hard-of-hearing.
Makers of DVDs or distributors for TV or streaming did not change
the mix as a regular thing (I think what I read suggested that a
few of them did).
(1) When I went to an IMAX movie some years ago, I was impressed
that I never was disturbed by noise from other patrons, rustling
their candy or whatever. My reckoning (I never read about it) was
that their volume was an extra 15dB above the usual, with white
noise mixed in. - The human ear is not naturally a good judge of
volume, but rather, of distortion. I have a decent stereo that I use
for playback, music, DVD, and TV; when I want to know if the
volume is too high (I live in an apartment), I walk down the hall.
Ifl it does not get noticeably too soft, it is carrying too far.
From the fifties onwards movies for big cinemas
often had multi-track sound systems.
The dialog and the music were on different tracks,
and they would come through separate amplifiers and speakers.
This helps enormously in understanding speach.
No intermodulation distortion, and the human ear-brain system
can focus on sounds from certain directions,
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:57:44 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:16:40 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
Some more thoughts about why one would be wanting subtitles.
Perhaps with age I'm getting rather deafish, but:
In previous times many actors had experience in theater, had studied
good diction, and had probably studied good grammar too. They'd be using >>>> a rather declamatory, literary language even for 'informal' but still
theatrical dialogues.
Now they're supposed to use Average Joe's idiom and attitude, they
already have only a vague notion of the virtues of good articulation,
and they have to converse in dialectical speech rather than standard
language, so following contemporary dialogue can soon become tiresome. >>>>
In addition, the sound engineers nowadays have lost balance between
sound/music and human voice (even between music itself, eg, between loud >>>> and soft parts). When both are getting mixed during conversation scenes >>>> it is usually the voices that are drowned in the musical environment, so >>>> it takes a sharp ear to sort out the dialogue from the auditive mess.
I think I've reported here some years ago on a technical explanation
that I had read for this.
The original recordings were designed for the excellent audio systems
of movie theaters, with music above 100 dB(1). The human
ear can make out human voices easily at (say) 25 dB less than that
volume for the music. However, we play back at home much more
quietly. Unfortunately, that lower volume control reduces 'vocal'
to a dB level that is not readily intelligible. Playing back at high
volume at home presumably fixes that problem, and is one excuse
for wearing earphones.
Playing at the lower volume means that low 'background sounds'
will disappear -- those will be mentioned in the English subtitles
for the Hard-of-hearing.
Makers of DVDs or distributors for TV or streaming did not change
the mix as a regular thing (I think what I read suggested that a
few of them did).
(1) When I went to an IMAX movie some years ago, I was impressed
that I never was disturbed by noise from other patrons, rustling
their candy or whatever. My reckoning (I never read about it) was
that their volume was an extra 15dB above the usual, with white
noise mixed in. - The human ear is not naturally a good judge of
volume, but rather, of distortion. I have a decent stereo that I use
for playback, music, DVD, and TV; when I want to know if the
volume is too high (I live in an apartment), I walk down the hall.
Ifl it does not get noticeably too soft, it is carrying too far.
From the fifties onwards movies for big cinemas
often had multi-track sound systems.
The dialog and the music were on different tracks,
and they would come through separate amplifiers and speakers.
This helps enormously in understanding speach.
No intermodulation distortion, and the human ear-brain system
can focus on sounds from certain directions,
I didn't remember 'separate tracks' if I ever knew it.
Web search suggests that the 'third' channel has dialog
on TV and DVDs, even now. That's new to me. There's the
suggestion that the separate speaker soundbars can use
that and be effective.
I have seen on my TV audio setup options some settings that
are supposed to enhance clarity of dialog -- a separate
channel would be more effective than merely enhancing a
frequence range, which is what I assumed they were doing.
I send my raw TV audio to my stereo system by optical link, so
I have never fiddled with those TV settings. - Oh, it annoyed
me when I saw (on a previous TV) greyed-out options for video
processing, ones that were available ONLY on LARGER sets.
"Small" sets (e.g., 43") seem to be ineligible for the higher-tech
options.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:57:44 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:16:40 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
Some more thoughts about why one would be wanting subtitles.
Perhaps with age I'm getting rather deafish, but:
In previous times many actors had experience in theater, had studied
good diction, and had probably studied good grammar too. They'd be using >> >a rather declamatory, literary language even for 'informal' but still
theatrical dialogues.
Now they're supposed to use Average Joe's idiom and attitude, they
already have only a vague notion of the virtues of good articulation,
and they have to converse in dialectical speech rather than standard
language, so following contemporary dialogue can soon become tiresome.
In addition, the sound engineers nowadays have lost balance between
sound/music and human voice (even between music itself, eg, between loud >> >and soft parts). When both are getting mixed during conversation scenes >> >it is usually the voices that are drowned in the musical environment, so >> >it takes a sharp ear to sort out the dialogue from the auditive mess.
I think I've reported here some years ago on a technical explanation
that I had read for this.
The original recordings were designed for the excellent audio systems
of movie theaters, with music above 100 dB(1). The human
ear can make out human voices easily at (say) 25 dB less than that
volume for the music. However, we play back at home much more
quietly. Unfortunately, that lower volume control reduces 'vocal'
to a dB level that is not readily intelligible. Playing back at high
volume at home presumably fixes that problem, and is one excuse
for wearing earphones.
Playing at the lower volume means that low 'background sounds'
will disappear -- those will be mentioned in the English subtitles
for the Hard-of-hearing.
Makers of DVDs or distributors for TV or streaming did not change
the mix as a regular thing (I think what I read suggested that a
few of them did).
(1) When I went to an IMAX movie some years ago, I was impressed
that I never was disturbed by noise from other patrons, rustling
their candy or whatever. My reckoning (I never read about it) was
that their volume was an extra 15dB above the usual, with white
noise mixed in. - The human ear is not naturally a good judge of
volume, but rather, of distortion. I have a decent stereo that I use
for playback, music, DVD, and TV; when I want to know if the
volume is too high (I live in an apartment), I walk down the hall.
Ifl it does not get noticeably too soft, it is carrying too far.
From the fifties onwards movies for big cinemas
often had multi-track sound systems.
The dialog and the music were on different tracks,
and they would come through separate amplifiers and speakers.
This helps enormously in understanding speach.
No intermodulation distortion, and the human ear-brain system
can focus on sounds from certain directions,
I didn't remember 'separate tracks' if I ever knew it.
Web search suggests that the 'third' channel has dialog--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
on TV and DVDs, even now. That's new to me. There's the
suggestion that the separate speaker soundbars can use
that and be effective.
I have seen on my TV audio setup options some settings that
are supposed to enhance clarity of dialog -- a separate
channel would be more effective than merely enhancing a
frequence range, which is what I assumed they were doing.
I send my raw TV audio to my stereo system by optical link, so
I have never fiddled with those TV settings. - Oh, it annoyed
me when I saw (on a previous TV) greyed-out options for video
processing, ones that were available ONLY on LARGER sets.
"Small" sets (e.g., 43") seem to be ineligible for the higher-tech
options.
On 24/08/2025 21:13, Snidely wrote:
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that, >>>>> you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think >>>> of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The >>> person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside the >>> persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
[whoosh mode] I don't think this is necessary. It's just a matter of tweaking an equalizer until the speaker agrees that the filtered product sounds through the output transducer the way the speaker hears itself during speech. Possibly a very small delay may be needed for some frequencies, but given the size of the skull, I would expect this to be negligible.
The initial settings could be quite close if you had a chart of what frequencies wet bone conducts best.
It's people like you that want to suck all the fun out of scientific endeavour.
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously?-a That was Sunday:
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that,
you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think
of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The
person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside
the
persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
[whoosh mode]-a I don't think this is necessary.-a It's just a matter of tweaking an equalizer until the speaker agrees that the filtered
product sounds through the output transducer the way the speaker hears itself during speech.-a Possibly a very small delay may be needed for
some frequencies, but given the size of the skull, I would expect this
to be negligible.
The initial settings could be quite close if you had a chart of what frequencies wet bone conducts best.
Op 24/08/2025 om 22:13 schreef Snidely:
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:
So that others could know how you hear your own voice...
Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that, >>>>> you'd have to drill holes ...
On the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound),
and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think >>>> of it, and decide to give it a try.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The >>> person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can't
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside
the
persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
There is a way to get this right.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
[whoosh mode] I don't think this is necessary. It's just a matter of tweaking an equalizer until the speaker agrees that the filtered
product sounds through the output transducer the way the speaker hears itself during speech. Possibly a very small delay may be needed for
some frequencies, but given the size of the skull, I would expect this
to be negligible.
The initial settings could be quite close if you had a chart of what frequencies wet bone conducts best.
Meanwhile, anybody an idea where I would be liable to get serious
answers to my serious question? Perhaps such a technique could even help
some people with a hearing impairment, or voice imitators for that
matter. If genuine curiosity wouldn't suffice.
guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
Op 24/08/2025 om 22:13 schreef Snidely:Fiddling with a multi channel equaliser should get you quite close.
Remember when Peter Moylan bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:Meanwhile, anybody an idea where I would be liable to get serious
On 24/08/25 18:11, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 23.08.2025 kl. 23.08 skrev guido wugi:There is a way to get this right.
Who is going to check when the sound is right? Others? Clearly not. The >>>>> person in focus? But he hears what he's always heard, so he can'tOn the contrary I think it must be quite possible (like any sound), >>>>>> and worth the experience at that. Just need the right person to think >>>>>> of it, and decide to give it a try.So that others could know how you hear your own voice...Never. And I consider the project impossible. Your own sound is
transported via your bones in the head. If you want to record that, >>>>>>> you'd have to drill holes ...
correct any external sound. You need to record the sound from inside >>>>> the
persons skull and even that might be inherently wrong.
1. Remove the head from the body.
2. Scrape out the brain tissue.
3. Put a microphone inside the skull.
[whoosh mode] I don't think this is necessary. It's just a matter of
tweaking an equalizer until the speaker agrees that the filtered
product sounds through the output transducer the way the speaker hears
itself during speech. Possibly a very small delay may be needed for
some frequencies, but given the size of the skull, I would expect this
to be negligible.
The initial settings could be quite close if you had a chart of what
frequencies wet bone conducts best.
answers to my serious question? Perhaps such a technique could even help
some people with a hearing impairment, or voice imitators for that
matter. If genuine curiosity wouldn't suffice.
(and you can't use 'liable' in this way)
Op 27/08/2025 om 23:15 schreef J. J. Lodder:
guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
Meanwhile, anybody an idea where I would be liable to get seriousFiddling with a multi channel equaliser should get you quite close.
answers to my serious question? Perhaps such a technique could even help >>> some people with a hearing impairment, or voice imitators for that
matter. If genuine curiosity wouldn't suffice.
That's what I'm thinking.
(and you can't use 'liable' in this way)
Liable: a) aansprakelijk, verantwoordelijk, b) blootgesteld, onderhevig, onderworpen
"" + <sarcasm> = b)
On 28/08/25 19:28, guido wugi wrote:
Op 27/08/2025 om 23:15 schreef J. J. Lodder:
guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
Meanwhile, anybody an idea where I would be liable to get seriousFiddling with a multi channel equaliser should get you quite close.
answers to my serious question? Perhaps such a technique could even help >>> some people with a hearing impairment, or voice imitators for that
matter. If genuine curiosity wouldn't suffice.
That's what I'm thinking.
(and you can't use 'liable' in this way)
Liable: a) aansprakelijk, verantwoordelijk, b) blootgesteld, onderhevig, onderworpen
"" + <sarcasm> = b)
My Dutch isn't good enough to know whether they are good translations,
but in any case it doesn't matter. The word you were looking for was not liable, but likely.