Tows, and legal/financial matters

[Bru]

I don't think the law is (totally) obsolete*, nor is it futile

Once again, i remind the panel that the law does not apply to marine VHF alone

It is this law that can be and has been used, for example, to tackle the media publishing information gleaned by scanning the mobile network bands. It also is applicable to using information from emergency services radio communications*

There is also significant commercial use of radio comms - indeed back in my festival days i and upwards of 40 other people working on site had a radio on my belt and those were just the site radios, there'd be contractors on site at times with their own nets. And we ran anything up to a dozen plus radio mics for performers and speakers. Whilst nothing we were doing was terribly sensitive, or even interesting most of the time, that isn't always the case

All fall under the laws on illegal monitoring of radio transmissions and use of information derived therefrom

* The relevant laws are perhaps becoming less relevant with increased use of encrypted digital communications especially in sensitive fields such as police comms

 

[JumbleDuck]

How can it not be correct?

It could be that lifeguarded beaches attract more people into the water ("It must be safe") and that a smaller proportion of more people is an increase.

It could be that people assume lifeguarded beaches are safer than other ones and go swimming when the lifeguards aren't on duty

It could be that lifeguards are seen as killjoys and drive people to unsupervised beaches instead.

I have no idea if any of these apply, but the claim that lifeguards reduce drownings overall (which seems very likely) really ought to be backed up with strong evidence.

 

[JumbleDuck]

And we ran anything up to a dozen plus radio mics for performers and speakers.

It's just occurred to me that tapping into radio feeds could be a way of doing high quality bootlegging. Does anyone do that?

 

[Bru]

It's just occurred to me that tapping into radio feeds could be a way of doing high quality bootlegging. Does anyone do that?

Funny you should say that ...

Actually, you wouldn't get anything usable by grabbing the radio mic signals, all you'd get would be the raw vocals and maybe some instruments (those using a radio link rather than a wired connection / microphone

And even without missing instruments it'd sound rubbish cos there'd be no equalization (bass / treble etc), no effects (reverb etc) and no mix

Doesn't matter how good the vocalists and musicians are, it takes the magic fingers of the sound engineer to make it sound good (there are limits though, there's only so much you can do to make a bad act sound good. And if an act gets on your wick there's a LOT you can subtly do to make them sound bad! Yes, I've done it. Only once but they definitely got what they asked for)

What you really need to tap into is the output from the mixer (and virtually all modern mixers have a specific output for the purpose which, on more sophisticated desks, isn't necessarily the same mix as the feed to the amplifiers) but I've never heard of this being done for nefarious purposes (it'd end the career of any sound tech caught doing it, he / she would never find work again). It's perfectly feasible technically though

 

[Bru]

...
the claim that lifeguards reduce drownings overall (which seems very likely) really ought to be backed up with strong evidence.

I would argue (well I would, wouldn't i?) that it's so self evident that any argument against it ought to be backed up with strong evidence

 

[lustyd]

If that's your logic then the RNLI will be very busy justifying why they don't deploy lifeguards to a few thousand quiet beaches...

 

[Bru]

If that's your logic then the RNLI will be very busy justifying why they don't deploy lifeguards to a few thousand quiet beaches...

?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Actually, you wouldn't get anything usable by grabbing the radio mic signals, all you'd get would be the raw vocals and maybe some instruments (those using a radio link rather than a wired connection / microphone

Good points. I was really thinking about soloists witha single mike, but I guess even they rely a lot on (you) sound engineers.

What you really need to tap into is the output from the mixer (and virtually all modern mixers have a specific output for the purpose which, on more sophisticated desks, isn't necessarily the same mix as the feed to the amplifiers) but I've never heard of this being done for nefarious purposes (it'd end the career of any sound tech caught doing it, he / she would never find work again). It's perfectly feasible technically though

Bad reading on my part. I saw "speakers" and thought you used radio links to the loudspeakers.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I would argue (well I would, wouldn't i?) that it's so self evident that any argument against it ought to be backed up with strong evidence

Perhaps. When children's playgrounds are surfaced with rubber instead of asphalt, the injury rate goes up because children think it's safe and jump from heights. "Freakonomics" is full of interesting cases like this, and well worth a read.

 

[Bru]

Good points. I was really thinking about soloists witha single mike, but I guess even they rely a lot on (you) sound engineers.

More than they'd ever admit

Bad reading on my part. I saw "speakers" and thought you used radio links to the loudspeakers.

Ah, yes it was open to confusion. I did mean speakers as in people speaking rather than speakers as in the things that make all the noise

I could have referred to the lot of them as the "(we like to think we've got) talent" but as in my day I've spent as much time as a performer as I have as a tech I'd be shooting myself in the foot (again)

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Perhaps. When children's playgrounds are surfaced with rubber instead of asphalt, the injury rate goes up because children think it's safe and jump from heights. "Freakonomics" is full of interesting cases like this, and well worth a read.

But there's the other argument, going back to WWI. When steel helmets were first issued to troops, conservatively minded officers pointed to the fact that the number of head injuries rose, and argued along the lines that they encouraged risk-taking. This was countered by pointing out that without steel helmets, many of the head injuries would have been fatal and counted in a different category.

For any safety installation, there's two possible effects:

1) mitigation of harm, replacing more serious injury with less serious injury,
2) encouragement of dangerous behaviour.

 

[zoidberg]

I'm reminded of Arthur Ransome's famous quip "If not duffers, won't drown. If duffers....."

Having had one contribution to discussion of current RNLI practice summarily 'binned' a day or two ago, I'll risk another comment.....

Several years ago, on a Falmouth Harbour V-mooring about 200 metres from Prince of Wales Pier, we discovered a PSS seal had failed and the boat was steadily filling up. The 'lecky-pumps were not adequate, and my attempts to raise the Harbour Launch failed ( he'd gone to the pub ). I then radio'd Falmouth Coastguard up on Pendennis Hill - one mile away, in line of sight - appraised them of our intentions, which were to run aground alongside the pier, and asked them to contact the Harbour Office for us.

We'd scarcely completed that call when there was a bump alongside, and some yellow-booted RNLI types came swarming over the guardrail, their Atlantic 85 securing alongside. "We were exercising nearby and heard your call. Can we help? We can have a salvage pump on board with 3-4 minutes...."

Sorted. And that was that!

They even arranged for a local yard to standby and provide an immediate 'lift', escorting/alongside-towing us to ensure no further 'complications'. I don't know who spoke to whom on Channel 0, but there was no suggestion of 'hesitation, repetition or deviation'.

Those guys and their colleagues are the 'beezneez'.

 

[INT QRK]

But there's the other argument, going back to WWI. When steel helmets were first issued to troops, conservatively minded officers pointed to the fact that the number of head injuries rose, and argued along the lines that they encouraged risk-taking. This was countered by pointing out that without steel helmets, many of the head injuries would have been fatal and counted in a different category.

For any safety installation, there's two possible effects:

1) mitigation of harm, replacing more serious injury with less serious injury,
2) encouragement of dangerous behaviour.

Similar to another example that I saw recently where the USAAF did a painstaking survey of damage sustained to their bombers in the Second World War and took steps to reinforce the structure in those areas. However it was pointed out that since the damage was being measured on the surviving bombers it was in fact those areas which were recorded as not sustaining damage that needed the work at these were where the fatal hits were happening.

 

[JumbleDuck]

But there's the other argument, going back to WWI. When steel helmets were first issued to troops, conservatively minded officers pointed to the fact that the number of head injuries rose, and argued along the lines that they encouraged risk-taking. This was countered by pointing out that without steel helmets, many of the head injuries would have been fatal and counted in a different category.

The most famous example of this was the work of Abraham Wald on armour plating planes in WW2. Until his work, designers had tended to put armour plate in the places where planes returning from missions had bullet holes. Wald pointed out that those planes had returned, and that they ought to protect the places where returning planes didn't have bullet holes, because the ones shot there weren't coming back.

It's very obvious when you think about it, but it was a revolutionary insight at the time. There is a good article about Abraham Wald and the Statistical Research Group at Abraham Wald and the Missing Bullet Holes

 

[JumbleDuck]

Similar to another example that I saw recently where the USAAF did a painstaking survey of damage sustained to their bombers in the Second World War and took steps to reinforce the structure in those areas. However it was pointed out that since the damage was being measured on the surviving bombers it was in fact those areas which were recorded as not sustaining damage that needed the work at these were where the fatal hits were happening.

Whoops. Should have read on before posting.

 

[INT QRK]

The most famous example of this was the work of Abraham Wald on armour plating planes in WW2. Until his work, designers had tended to put armour plate in the places where planes returning from missions had bullet holes. Wald pointed out that those planes had returned, and that they ought to protect the places where returning planes didn't have bullet holes, because the ones shot there weren't coming back.

It's very obvious when you think about it, but it was a revolutionary insight at the time. There is a good article about Abraham Wald and the Statistical Research Group at Abraham Wald and the Missing Bullet Holes

Echo? ;-)

 

[westernman]

Doesn't matter how good the vocalists and musicians are, it takes the magic fingers of the sound engineer to make it sound good (there are limits though, there's only so much you can do to make a bad act sound good.

Then there is autotune. Almost no limits as to what you can do with that. E.g.

 

[Bru]

Then there is autotune. Almost no limits as to what you can do with that. E.g.

Yup. There's more than one very well known singer who is rumoured to need auto tune even when performing live

Then there's time shifting where something isn't quite on the beat

And very few if any studio recordings are from one take, each part is almost always spliced together from multiple takes

There's all sorts of tricks available especially in the studio

 

[davidpbo]

Funny you should say that ...

Actually, you wouldn't get anything usable by grabbing the radio mic signals, all you'd get would be the raw vocals and maybe some instruments (those using a radio link rather than a wired connection / microphone

And even without missing instruments it'd sound rubbish cos there'd be no equalization (bass / treble etc), no effects (reverb etc) and no mix

Doesn't matter how good the vocalists and musicians are, it takes the magic fingers of the sound engineer to make it sound good (there are limits though, there's only so much you can do to make a bad act sound good. And if an act gets on your wick there's a LOT you can subtly do to make them sound bad! Yes, I've done it. Only once but they definitely got what they asked for)

What you really need to tap into is the output from the mixer (and virtually all modern mixers have a specific output for the purpose which, on more sophisticated desks, isn't necessarily the same mix as the feed to the amplifiers) but I've never heard of this being done for nefarious purposes (it'd end the career of any sound tech caught doing it, he / she would never find work again). It's perfectly feasible technically though

The other thing is that with lower volume gigs, the sound the engineer is mixing is a combination of what is going the desk and what is being heard directly either from the instruments or back line coloured by the accoustics of the venue. The mix from the main desk out may be primarily the quieter items.

 

[Bru]

The other thing is that with lower volume gigs, the sound the engineer is mixing is a combination of what is going the desk and what is being heard directly either from the instruments or back line coloured by the accoustics of the venue. The mix from the main desk out may be primarily the quieter items.

Indeed thus leading to the infamous occasion when an event organiser brusquely ordered my duty sound guy to "turn that (expletive deleted) racket down" to which he stuttered (literally, he's got a fairly bad stammer especially when stressed) ...

"Turn it down? I haven't even turned it on!"

(It was a booking mix up by the event. A young, enthusiastic, actually rather good but VERY loud just with their stage backline* heavy metal band! They got paid

* for those not in the know, the backline is all the amps for guitars etc at the back of the stage which flash guitarists usually insist must be turned up to 11 thus ensuring they bleed all over the vocal mics and bugger up the front of house mix - the "house" mix is what the audience hear and thus the really important bit, not pandering to the overblown egos of prima donna guitar heroes ... I have been known to apply liberal quantities of gaffer tape over the knobs on a guitarists amp when the knob on the guitar kept twiddling after we'd got a decent mix)