Sound on Sound

[Mr.Si]

Hi all,

 

I have just been flicking through the March 2006 edition of Sound on Sound's Live Supplement (a colleague is more a studio guy and gives me the live bits).

 

I have to say that they've got some really good articles about pro stuff such as monitor mixing and Line arrays in this edition. And although there were a couple of statements I disagreed with, the content seems excellent.

Might answer some random questions about sound that people have.

 

Well worth a read!

 

Si

[Simon Lewis]

And although there were a couple of statements I disagreed with

 

Go on then....;-)

 

what were they?

[Mr.Si]

hehe, :) well the one I can remember was:

 

"Speech requires near 100-percent intelligibility"

 

I kinda disagree, because even an STI with a "FAIR" Rating (between 0.45 & 0.6 (aka 45 & 60%) ) is quite intelligible.

Now it is "desirable" to have near 100% intelligibility for speech, but it doesn't require it. I can see what they're trying to put across, but IMO it's inaccurate.

 

Blessings ;)

[paulears]

An STI considered to be in the 'fair' category wouldn't be that easy to understand - isn't this category the one typically found at railway stations, airports and other troublesome buildings? Personally, I like to hear every word and not have to listen so carefully, using my brain to fill in the gaps.

 

Regardsing the SOS Live mag - I found it pretty poor this time - they've sort of simplified everything to make it easily understandable, but this means far too many generalisations and not enough specifics - the main mag seems better at this. Maybe they use their junior staffers and casual freelancers with less experience?

 

Like the Sennheiser review - very soft, lots of general 'it's good' comment, but little in depth comparison. I get the feeling some 'reviews' could well be paid for ones as no dodgy comments. The obvious one here is that the Trantec sourced handhelds are plastic, the Senn EVs are metal - surely this is a pretty important difference - but not covered that well. PP3 still in use, rather than the AA's in the other - just little ommisions that leave me wondering?

[Simon Lewis]

"Speech requires near 100-percent intelligibility"

 

 

Hmmmm I guess it's easier to say that than to calculate STI ;-)

 

I can see where they are coming from, but as Paul says, such articles are often watered down to suit the average readership...

 

Well, I'd be happier for STI = 0.6 to 0.8 for average articulation and listener acuity. If there is hearing loss, then Lexington School for the Deaf suggest STI or 0.8 or greater.

I'm hoping a student will take on a speech intelligibility of AFILS project for me next year ;-)

[Mr.Si]

yeah I agree, both with the watered down content, (but for what it is, it seems to be great in) and also with the STI thing - I'd definitely like a higher Speech Transmission Index too, and totally understand the thing about higher STI for the hearing impaired.

 

I was just suprised that such articles were even featured in the SOS live supplement. - I'm gonna have to read the articles all the way through now, as I only flicked through them this lunch time.

 

I'm liking hearing other views on this :)

[Bobbsy]

The other mag that has a live sound supplement now is Audio Media. Like most magazines a lot of this is manufacturer's puff pieces but there is some decent stuff and also frequent interviews with working sound ops.

 

It's certainly worth the cover price (mainly because anyone in the industry can get it free.....

 

Bob