"QUALITY IN RECEPTION"

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 34, 9 August 1934, Page 23

"QUALITY IN RECEPTION"

THE MELLOW TOME

WHERE DOES THE FAULT

LIE?

An extremely interesting question is raised by an editorial article in "Wirelens World" (London) published after it had commented upon radio transmission quality and had deplored the attitude of the 8.8.C. of apparently accepting that a compromise was justified and that the transmission of a. frequency scalo would be unfair because it would reveal the limitations of receivers, j "We arc distressed to find, from cor-! rcspondenco we havo received," says the article, "that there seems to be an all too complacent attitude towards this question of quality, suggesting that wireless is already being accepted as 'wireless,' as if better quality than is generally available at the present time is neither expected nor required. Even musicians who recognise the limitations of most sets of today seem to think that the imagination can supply the deficiencies and that 'considering it is wireless, reception is really very good.' "One set manufacturer tells us that receivers which are really faithful in reproduction are not in general demand, but that the public prefers 'mellow' reproduction, and- receivers having a good high note response have had to be modified deliberately in order to remove top. At the transmission'end, too, we find that it is tho practice of the 8.8.C. to avoid putting over sounds which depend upon a high note response for proper reproduction. In such circumstances it is difficult to see what can be done to raise the standard of rcceivoi performance. It can probably only be achieved by educating the public to an appreciation of the limitations of their present reception and making it possible for them to have a new standard of comparison.

. .' . If the 8.8.C. and the nianufacturors have both satisfied themselves that high quality of reproduction is apt wanted, it is going to be au uphill s^.aggle to make any headway towards creating, a public demand for a better performance." The "Wireless World" has consistently and even belligerently maintained that overy wireless transmitter and receiver should, so far as is practically possible,, transmit all frequencies faithfully; and it cannot be denied that this ia not only desirable but necessary if broadcasting is to fulfil its whole mission. None the less, there is the stubborn attitude of tho listener, who deliberately chooses to drop tho high-frequency response of Ms set if it can bo done. In New Zealand, a great proportion of receivers have tone controls. Almost invariably these are set so that the tone of tho reproduction is ' lowered for music; yet for tho reception of speech the discriminating listener usually turns the control to restore the high frequencies —what the article quoted calls "top." This is_ done because speech robbed' of its higher frequencies sounds unnatural. Why, then, is tho tono modified for music? If speech is more natural with tho "top" included, it stands to reason that music is also more natural. And hi fact it is. But the listener finds it moro pleasant to cut tho "top" off. Why? We were taught a few years ago (and mostly by wireless) that "forty million Frenchmen can't bo wrong." And when it comes to a. question of appreciation of music served up to the general pqpulatipn,, tho' millions of listeners must be granted the right, to a sound opinion. It anipunts to this— that tho.balance of toae of musical pertformances is purely" conventional; and 'the convention has been fixed not by I the audiences, but by those responsible for tho performance... Prior to tho adIvent of the gramophone'and radio, the i audiences had no means whatever of ! controlling mutical tone. They had to take exactly what was given to them. But no sooner did recorded music appear than the public displayed a definite preference for gramophones of "mellow" tone, in which the higher frequencies were moro or less suppressed; and tho cpmmon use of the tone-control on radio setß has enormiously confirmed the verdict of the | gramophone usors. At tho risk of being charged with heresy, I declare that this shows, not a depraved taste on the part of the I public, but an error of judgment on tho part of musicians as entertainers of tho public. It is no doubt a i ?.oc that musicians as a class (and the vast majority of the public, however jiuch they liko music, are not. >^asieians) naturally like, or Kayo boca trained to like, musical frequencies running up to the highest audible notes. But they should seriously consider whether, I though they may be right as musicians, they are still right as musical enterj tainevs, endeavouring to meet tho tastes !of millions of less cultured ears. It iniay be that the modern^ noisy world [is robbing the human ear of-its linor I sensibilities and' damaging its approeiI atioii of the higher notes of music, so ! that listening to them imposes a slight [degree of strain which the listener is ; .•••■lad- to avoid. The musician, tied to (inherited ■ conventions, especially in rospect of the composition of tho orchestra, and with his trained ears attuned t,o conditions which the general public meet less of ten," fails to appreciate that he is not as' other men. It is quite possible that if tho cinema theatre could bo fitted with a sex-appeal control as the radio is with a tone-control, the picture producers would find that they also are not giving tho public just -ivhat is wanted.

This argument is: not in any sense an argument for unfaithful radio receivers. It is a suggestion that the trouble lies not with the listeners who monkey with tone-control but with tho music to begin with.