Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Trying to nail the ColtsFollow

#1 Nov 05 2007 at 11:47 PM Rating: Good
***
2,374 posts
Are the Colts "pumping up the volume?"


A day after some unusual sounds were heard during the Colts-Patriots broadcast Sunday, the NFL issued a statement saying what sounded like simulated crowd noise was actually created by the CBS production crew, not the Colts.


It's kind of weird that the CBS crew was trying to make it sound noisier to the TV audience. I don't need to hear a bunch of raucous fans to enjoy a football game.
#2 Nov 06 2007 at 1:17 AM Rating: Decent
gee, pumping artificial noise into an arena located in "napville".

imagine that
#3 Nov 06 2007 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I remember that during the game. It was pretty obviously noise feedback going into the line because that's exactly what it sounds like. Same sound you get when someone on a radio show has their radio on while talking on a phone being aired on the same station. It was equally obvious that some sound person realized what was happening and shut off the feed after a second or so (which is why the crowd noise suddenly stopped).

Kinda silly to assume that because you hear something strange on your TV that it must have been present in the stadium.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Nov 06 2007 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

It was equally obvious that some sound person realized what was happening and shut off the feed after a second or so (which is why the crowd noise suddenly stopped).


Maybe, but probably not. It's exceptionally common for TV sports broadcasts to add synthetic sounds to productions. Fake crowd noise, fake baseball bat cracks, fake bird noises on golf courses, whatever.



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#5 Nov 06 2007 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
The noise was to distract people from the guy videotaping the Patriots playcalling.
#6 Nov 06 2007 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

It was equally obvious that some sound person realized what was happening and shut off the feed after a second or so (which is why the crowd noise suddenly stopped).


Maybe, but probably not. It's exceptionally common for TV sports broadcasts to add synthetic sounds to productions. Fake crowd noise, fake baseball bat cracks, fake bird noises on golf courses, whatever.



Sure. But that's added to the broadcast. The allegation was that they were actually piping extra crowd noise into the stadium itself. I'm reasonably certain that if the kind of feedback/echo sound we heard on TV was actually present in the stadium someone would have noticed...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Nov 06 2007 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
you mean like the players that stated that it was deafeningly loud in the stadium? this isnt the first time that they've been accussed of this.
#8 Nov 06 2007 at 11:16 PM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
Maybe, but probably not. It's exceptionally common for TV sports broadcasts to add synthetic sounds to productions. Fake crowd noise, fake baseball bat cracks, fake bird noises on golf courses, whatever.


Really? And how many sports telecasts have you been a part of?

I work in TV, and I have been a part of several College sports games. Either in person or while on speaker phone. Granted it wasn't Pro sports, but I have been on Conference calls with CBS several times listening in on the Directors of such games.

And I have never seen or heard any Director doing such things >.>

Any Synthetic sound you hear on a sports telecast is produced and used during bumps, billboards or Special effects graphics. Not during the games, themselves.

Now granted, I was not there. So I can't say undeniably that the production crew didn't do such a thing.

But saying that it is "Common"?, give me a break man! Who in the hell are you kidding with that??? It's far from common on any level. >.>

Also, let it be known that I @#%^ing hate CBS!!! They are a bunch of idiotic @#%^s. Who are beyond arrogant, do things *** backwards from the other networks, and blame local stations for their ***** ups instead of admiting they did wrong. And on top of that, none of their affiliate reps are polite at all. Are they the only ppl in NYC who constantly have a chip on their shoulder or what? I've met and talked to several ppl from NYC and none of them act as disrespectfully as the ppl working at CBS.

So if CBS actually did that on purpose, either be having the production crew do it or by themselves, it would make me laugh at yet another CBS arrogant move. But I doubt they did, even as stupid as CBS is.

It's far from common man.

Edited, Nov 7th 2007 12:17am by Nuhnisgodly
#9 Nov 06 2007 at 11:56 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
I remember that during the game. It was pretty obviously noise feedback going into the line because that's exactly what it sounds like.


It was most likely a new production member either on Audio or on the TD board. As one wrong button can cause them to broadcast the wrong things. Or it could've just been a honest mistake, like leaving the Audio open while they were reviewing footage of the game. Or just someone being stupid and not listening to the Director.

The Directors of such events have at least half a dozen ppl taking in his/her ear the whole time at the same times. So it being as long as it was, was most likely due to the fact that the Director didn't notice it offhand. And as soon as he/she noticed it, it was eliminated as quickly as possible.

Being the Director of such an event takes alot of concentration on their part.

Edited, Nov 7th 2007 12:57am by Nuhnisgodly
#10 Nov 07 2007 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
alchemistceno wrote:
you mean like the players that stated that it was deafeningly loud in the stadium? this isnt the first time that they've been accussed of this.


Deafeningly loud? Sure. But that's not the same as "strange feedback warble where the crowd noise is obviously distorted back into itself".

You notice that. It's distinctive. Seriously. Anyone who's done *any* AV work at any level can instantly recognize it and no one hearing it can miss it (unless they're deaf). If the sound we heard for about a second on the TV broadcast were actually being pumped into the stadium, you wouldn't have a number of players saying the sound was deafening. You'd have every single person in that stadium standing around wondering what that really weird sound was.

Only the people watching the game on TV heard it. Therefore it *wasn't* being pumped into the stadium and therefore can't be evidence of any sort of crowd noise amplification. Kinda obvious logic, but sometimes people don't get the really obvious...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Nov 07 2007 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Only the people watching the game on TV heard it. Therefore it *wasn't* being pumped into the stadium and therefore can't be evidence of any sort of crowd noise amplification. Kinda obvious logic, but sometimes people don't get the really obvious..


No, everyone gets it, at usual.

I realize it's confusing for you, but there is more than one subject being discussed in this thread. NO ONE is arguing that the TV broadcast is evidence of anything. People are pointing out that it's a valid question regardless of the TV broadcast noise being obviously unrelated. The broadcast noise just brought up the subject of teams adding synthetic noise to their stadium systems, UNDERSTAND YET?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Nov 07 2007 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
Duodenum wrote:
Trying to nail the Colts


Eh.. Debby does Dallas 2?

Well, good luck with that.

Edited, Nov 7th 2007 6:11pm by SingBismark
#13 Nov 07 2007 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Eh.. Debby does Dallas 2?


LOL, is that woman even still alive?
#14 Nov 07 2007 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I realize it's confusing for you, but there is more than one subject being discussed in this thread. NO ONE is arguing that the TV broadcast is evidence of anything. People are pointing out that it's a valid question regardless of the TV broadcast noise being obviously unrelated. The broadcast noise just brought up the subject of teams adding synthetic noise to their stadium systems, UNDERSTAND YET?



Um... When I say:

me wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that if the kind of feedback/echo sound we heard on TV was actually present in the stadium someone would have noticed...


And it's replied to with:

alchemistceno wrote:
you mean like the players that stated that it was deafeningly loud in the stadium? this isnt the first time that they've been accussed of this.



It certainly appears as though he's saying that the two events were somehow directly related. Maybe *you* understand that they aren't. But clearly some people don't get that. Otherwise he would not have said what he said. He is clearly arguing that the deafening loundness heard in the stadium was evidence of someone noticing the kind of feedback/echo sound heard on TV.


It's not exactly hard to follow. I say something. He responds to that. Try to keep up man.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Nov 07 2007 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

It certainly appears as though he's saying that the two events were somehow directly related.


ONLY TO YOU AND YOU ALONE.

That clearly wasn't the intent of his post, as would be easily deduced by anyone who knew over 100 words of English.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#16 Nov 07 2007 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That clearly wasn't the intent of his post, as would be easily deduced by anyone who knew over 100 words of English.


Um... Yeah. Clearly.

You really do live up to that lunatic title, don't you? ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Nov 07 2007 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Um... Yeah. Clearly.

Very clearly. If the poster responds and states that he, indeed, meant what you and you alone thought he did, I'll sincerely apologize.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#18 Nov 07 2007 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Um... Yeah. Clearly.

Very clearly. If the poster responds and states that he, indeed, meant what you and you alone thought he did, I'll sincerely apologize.


Lol! You're kidding right? This is some joke, and there are some guys with cameras waiting to pop out of the bushes or something?


Me and me alone? Smash. I hate to intrude into your delusional state, but there is no other way to interpret what he said. None. Nada. There is no way to read his response as anything other then a belief that the players who were complaining about the deafening noise had heard the feedback noise that we heard on TV.


It's not like this is written in code Smash. He wrote in clear English. There's no way to misinterpret his meaning. Unless your name happens to be Smasharoo I suppose.

What I really don't get is why you feel such a strong need to even make this point. What do you get out of this? What makes you read what is to me (and I assume everyone else reading this thread) a very obvious series of statements and replies, but for some reason you must insist that people aren't actually saying what they clearly said. It's not like you're clearing anything up. You're just being disruptive I guess.

/boggle
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Nov 07 2007 at 6:39 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

What I really don't get is why you feel such a strong need to even make this point. What do you get out of this? What makes you read what is to me (and I assume everyone else reading this thread)


That's why. Because you make the identical assumption constantly, and incorrectly about a wide range of subjects. Just trying to help. If you'd like to continue being known as the guy who explains things to people they clearly already understand because he's so shockingly deficient in reading comprehension that he continually misses every point, that's cool.

Good luck with that.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#20 Nov 07 2007 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Gbaji, you are an idiot.

Since there's no way to explain it to you, that's all I have to say.

#21 Nov 07 2007 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Holy hell Tricky. Get your nose out of Smash's ******** please. It's embarrassing.


Ok. Riddle me this. When I said "I'm reasonably certain that if the kind of feedback/echo sound we heard on TV was actually present in the stadium someone would have noticed...", and he responded with "you mean like the players that stated that it was deafeningly loud in the stadium?" what do you think he was talking about?

Now, if one of you language geniuses would care to attempt to provide a counter explanation for his meaning that actually matches the words he wrote down (pay specific attention to the leading "you mean" phrase), I'd be glad to hear it. But from where I'm sitting it's pretty clear that he meant those players were the ones that noticed the feedback sound we all heard on TV. Frankly, I don't see how you can read that any other way.

But you have fun trying I guess...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Nov 07 2007 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
And before I head out for the day, let me just add one more thing.

This has got to be the most bizarre and insane argument yet. I swear it's like Smash is so determined to oppose anything I say that if I pointed to a green light and said "that light is green", Smash would respond with some diatribe about how that light is really red, and every single person in the universe except me could see it and then proceed to keep arguing this point over and over.

And then, for some totally unknown reason, Tricky would appear and call me an idiot for insisting that the green light really is green. That's just icing on the cake I guess.

Well. They don't call this the asylum for nothing I guess...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Nov 07 2007 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:

This has got to be the most bizarre and insane argument yet.


As an unbiased observer, I'd have to say the Whopper v. Big Mac argument was far more bizarre.
#24 Nov 07 2007 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
from where I'm sitting it's pretty clear that he meant those players were the ones that noticed the feedback sound we all heard on TV




i think you need to adjust your seat.

the other 2 posters were spot on.
#25 Nov 08 2007 at 4:49 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
the other 2 posters were spot on.

Ding ding ding.

I'm shocked. Shocked I say.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#26 Nov 08 2007 at 4:57 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Smash is so determined to oppose anything I say


Hi, moron.

I'm not opposing anything you said particularly on this thread. I was merely pointing out that you have a chronic problem misunderstanding others posts.

The only conclusion anyone else drew from


you mean like the players that stated that it was deafeningly loud in the stadium? this isnt the first time that they've been accussed of this.


is that the TV broadcast may be a red herring when it comes to the question of if the Colts added noise or not. Not one person has seen it otherwise, including now, the guy who posted it.

YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE.

Regardless of your bizarre paranoid fantasy of me stalking your every post feverishly disagreeing out of pure spite, the facts are the facts. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO THOUGHT IT MEANT SOMETHING IT CLEARLY DID NOT.

Think it through and consider asking for clarification next time. You're ability to interpret meaning is clearly handicapped in some way, but that doesn't mean you can't add useless drivel to the appropriate conversation instead of an imaginary one.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 297 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (297)