Thread: Crowd Reactions
View Single Post
Old 04-16-2010, 10:43 AM   #48
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguakate View Post
...we are in 2010...everything's "digitalized"...Digital TV's, High Definition, enhanced audio...everything has to be seen and heard more clearly...is it possible this is the reason why the pop's aren't heard as loud on tv as the 80's and 90's?
If anything, "Enhanced audio" allows you to have a louder crowd and still keep the experience of the announcer/speaker/musician intact, especially with discrete HD audio. You get to five channels and you've got yourself a good way to mix sound in an enveloping fashion, you're enhancing the experience.

Ignoring the actual live crowds, there is little reason to think audio specifications would either mandate or make desirable the reduction of crowds, a key element of a live experience, to make the commentary more audible or to stop people from being "annoyed."

The 90s were a hot era. Now, less so. I suppose you could claim a poor business decision to alter the audio mix, but it's been fairly consistent over the years, and you'd still have to ignore the live crowds, which are generally accepted to be quieter (I don't care what Destor, Tedious, or the rest o the "It's still real to me, dammit!" Club say).
Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote