Can you get to the Proms?

[aeolium]

And whether or not people are or are not able, physically and financially, to go to a Prom is utterly irrelevant to the point that R3 listeners have every right to complain if the quality of the radio broadcast is poor. The Proms are run by the BBC and every Prom is broadcast live. Licence-fee payers around the country pay for the BBC including R3 and the BBC orchestras. The Proms themselves are heavily subsidised by those licence-fee payers. It is a simply ridiculous argument to say, if you are not happy with the quality of the BBC radio broadcast you should go to the concert. If the BBC are going to broadcast the concerts then they should provide decent audio quality.

[vinteuil]

And whether or not people are or are not able, physically and financially, to go to a Prom is utterly irrelevant to the point that R3 listeners have every right to complain if the quality of the radio broadcast is poor. The Proms are run by the BBC and every Prom is broadcast live. Licence-fee payers around the country pay for the BBC including R3 and the BBC orchestras. The Proms themselves are heavily subsidised by those licence-fee payers. It is a simply ridiculous argument to say, if you are not happy with the quality of the BBC radio broadcast you should go to the concert. If the BBC are going to broadcast the concerts then they should provide decent audio quality.

aeolium - thank you - as ever - for cutting through the rubbish and getting to the essential truth. The provision by the BBC of proper broadcast quality is the issue.

I live in Shepherd's Bush and so - according to some - could easily go to the Proms. The 'possibility' of that is irrelevant. I loathe the RAH and the whole "Proms" experience; I love listening to (some) Proms on the radio. That is what the BBC should be delivering: it is a Broadcasting organization, its putting-on of live concerts is secondary. How many in the RAH? How many listening on the radio?

[David Underdown]

Don't forget though that those listening in person do also contribute a significant proportion of the cost of the season, even though the numbers are relatively smaller. And in fact as has been argued on other threads, when you look at the costs per hour of the material with which the BBC can then fill significant amounts of broadcast time, the Proms is actually a very cheap way of filling the schedules (and that's only looking at TV broadcasts, the Radio 3 coverage could almost be said to be free)

[cavatina]

If the BBC are going to broadcast the concerts then they should provide decent audio quality.

Very true, but one man's "decent" is another man's "dire". Do you really think SIS would do a deliberately substandard job when, as a contractor, they risk losing the contract and being replaced? Surely they're trying the best they can with the resources and personnel they have; whether or not that's good enough to be renewed isn't for you or me to say.

Just because we've got a handful of people around here screaming bloody murder about how all the audio engineers deserve to be lined up and shot doesn't mean they're being in any way objective, or that their standards of quality are in any way representative. It seems a bit like you're all demanding the finest quality possible-- which I suppose is only fitting--but are your demands honestly within reason? Oh well.

Crumbs! Some of us hicks have to live in fourth-rate cities (10th-rate by Anna's standards! ). So that should raise the hackles of a fair number of UK cits.

Well as I said, it totally depends on the kind of lifestyle you want, and I suppose I can see some advantages if I really try. However, I usually don't try, since I grew up in a 50th-rate town and couldn't get out of there fast enough the second I turned eighteen. As a teenager, I remember standing in the middle of my room with my crummy old record player belting along with Ethel Merman singing "Some People". It was pretty much my anthem, really...definitely my inner "Enneagram 7" talking, not my "Enneagram 5".

Anyway, I'm sure that colours my views enormously. And now that you mention it, my hackles are raised by all the "stupid dirty foreigners" comments around here, so there you go.

[french frank]

cavatina

Is there any aspect at all of the BBC, Radio 3 or the Proms which you're prepared to allow the people who pay for them to criticise without being challenged? If people pay for the services, their 'agenda' is obvious.

[amateur51]

Do you really think SIS would do a deliberately substandard job when, as a contractor, they risk losing the contract and being replaced? Surely they're trying the best they can with the resources and personnel they have; whether or not that's good enough to be renewed isn't for you or me to say.

Have you followed the history of 'outsourcing' in UK, cavatina? Hospital cleaning ( resulting in the rise & rise of hospital infections), private seurity transer in prisons (some very dodgy results), etc, etc. A long history of contracts going to the lowest bidder, given by people who don't understand what's involved so price is king.

SIS may not deliberately plan to do a substandard job, but if BBC has got rid of the old-timers who knew what they were doing, who's to tell SIS they're doing substandard job?

Maybe the people who pay for it and appreciate high standards?

Us!!

[cavatina]

cavatina

Is there any aspect at all of the BBC, Radio 3 or the Proms which you're prepared to allow the people who pay for them to criticise without being challenged? If people pay for the services, their 'agenda' is obvious.

Of course you have the right to criticise anything you want, but there's no reason not to try to consider the flip side of the argument as well, especially given the "laypeople/professional" divide.

As someone who's infinitely more hypersensitive and irritable than most, I find I need to second-guess myself like this all the time: so often, what seems a reasonable complaint to me is radically out of step with everyone else's judgment. Telling professionals how to do their jobs seems risky at best, the absolute height of overweening narcissistic arrogance at worst.

A lot of us could do with a little more consideration and humility around here, myself most definitely included.

[cavatina]

SIS may not deliberately plan to do a substandard job, but if BBC has got rid of the old-timers who knew what they were doing, who's to tell SIS they're doing substandard job?

Maybe the people who pay for it and appreciate high standards?

Us!!

Good point; fair enough. Still, I'm sure if any engineer is going to find what's written around here useful, it's in everyone's interest if we provide more thoughtful, careful, detailed analysis and a lot less generic heated blather. Reasoned specifics, not irate generalities.

[amateur51]

Good point; fair enough. Still, I'm sure if any engineer is going to find what's written around here useful, it's in everyone's interest if we provide more thoughtful, careful, detailed analysis and a lot less generic heated blather. Reasoned specifics, not irate generalities.

Uh-uh! The buck for this one stops with your well-paid lutrine chum, cavatina.

As a former boss of mine would have said 'It's Roger's balls that are on the shovel for this one and I'm going to make sure that he's fully aware of that' Do excuse the quango-demotic

Perhaps a letter or a petition to Lord Patten?

[aeolium]

Very true, but one man's "decent" is another man's "dire". Do you really think SIS would do a deliberately substandard job when, as a contractor, they risk losing the contract and being replaced? Surely they're trying the best they can with the resources and personnel they have; whether or not that's good enough to be renewed isn't for you or me to say.

Just because we've got a handful of people around here screaming bloody murder about how all the audio engineers deserve to be lined up and shot doesn't mean they're being in any way objective, or that their standards of quality are in any way representative. It seems a bit like you're all demanding the finest quality possible-- which I suppose is only fitting--but are your demands honestly within reason? Oh well.

Ignoring the pointless exaggeration in the second paragraph, it is not just a question of subjective response by a 'handful of people'. There is hard evidence of the poor quality on a number of Proms broadcasts (e.g. in that provided by johnb for two of the early Proms including the Gothic broadcast). By contrast, you have presumably heard none of the broadcasts, since you attend all the concerts. So once again you are responding to the arguments of those (including people knowledgeable about audio engineering) who have experienced poor broadcast quality for some of the concerts with assumption and assertion based on no evidence whatsoever, not even that of your own ears. For you, apparently, it is simply impossible for R3 to do any wrong.

I live in Shepherd's Bush and so - according to some - could easily go to the Proms. The 'possibility' of that is irrelevant. I loathe the RAH and the whole "Proms" experience; I love listening to (some) Proms on the radio. That is what the BBC should be delivering: it is a Broadcasting organization, its putting-on of live concerts is secondary. How many in the RAH? How many listening on the radio?

Absolutely, vinteuil. Like some others, I live in a despised hick town in the middle of nowhere, and I loathe going to London (William Cobbett, thou shouldst be living at this hour). I find it irksome when those who dare to criticise R3's audio quality are taken to task by Prommers who enjoy subsidised concerts which are intended to be broadcast.

[french frank]

Telling professionals how to do their jobs seems risky at best, the absolute height of overweening narcissistic arrogance at worst.

Those who pay the piper call the tune, even if they can't play a note themselves. You're quick enough to complain when you feel people are getting at you, yet you represent any criticism, reasoned or not, as some sort of orgy of maniacal bombast ('screaming bloody murder about how all the audio engineers deserve to be lined up and shot', 'generic heated blather', 'the absolute height of overweening narcissistic arrogance').

Could one just, gently, say that the audio quality frequently leaves quite a bit to be desired?

[cavatina]

By contrast, you have presumably heard none of the broadcasts, since you attend all the concerts. So once again you are responding to the arguments of those (including people knowledgeable about audio engineering) who have experienced poor broadcast quality for some of the concerts with assumption and assertion based on no evidence whatsoever, not even that of your own ears.

You presume wrong. At night, I've been downloading some concerts to my hard drive and ripping the time limitations out of them so I can keep them forever. It's part of what keeps me awake till three or four in the morning, really. Oh, and I've also been using the I-player in the mornings when I want to hear a particular piece again.

For you, apparently, it is simply impossible for R3 to do any wrong.

Absolutely untrue, as you'd know if you'd read all my posts without your own biases. Now you're the one who's guilty of only seeing what you want to see.

[David Underdown]

Who is subsidising who? as I hinted in a previous post, it's not as simple as it appears. On the other hand, while the engineers are indeed surely not seeking to produce substandard output, it does seem likely that some specialist knowledge has been lost in the transfer. The current providers are not, as has been pointed out, from a music background (though if course, some if the employees may be). Without knowing the details of the contract how can we know how likely it is that the contract can actually be terminated, and if technical deficiencies can be seen surely it's important to feed this back to the BBC so they can take the matter up with their contractors?

[aeolium]

You presume wrong. At night, I've been downloading some concerts to my hard drive and ripping the time limitations out of them so I can keep them forever. It's part of what keeps me awake till three or four in the morning, really. Oh, and I've also been using the I-player in the mornings when I want to hear a particular piece again.

But that is not the same as hearing the broadcasts live - most people in all probability do not use I-player to listen to the concerts live. Though there have also been complaints about the sound quality on I-player, as other threads have indicated.

if technical deficiencies can be seen surely it's important to feed this back to the BBC so they can take the matter up with their contractors?

I completely agree - and that's why it is important that the criticisms are documented and reported to the BBC complaints dept.

[Anna]

Good point; fair enough. Still, I'm sure if any engineer is going to find what's written around here useful, it's in everyone's interest if we provide more thoughtful, careful, detailed analysis and a lot less generic heated blather. Reasoned specifics, not irate generalities.

Indeed. As in this post from cavatina a few days ago on a thread started by johnn perfectly illustrates:-

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when was the last time you had a hearing test? (Isn't it possible that getting older has left you more "capped" than you used to be?) Perhaps the Great Mystery of the Missing Frequencies could be solved with a simple trip to your otologist.

Obviously, nobody at the BBC has your exquisite, super-aesthete Des Esseintes-like sensitivities, so perhaps you need to get used to living in this hopelessly coarse world of ours, accept that radio isn't an ideal medium for audiophile purists, get a grip, and move on. Works for me!