For the second time I feel compelled to write about a review broadcast on the TV tech programme The Gadget Show, which I believe was unfair.
The review was a comparison of three touch screen based portable media players (PMPs) - the iPod Touch, iRiver Spinn and the Cowan Q5. Testing focused around how easy the units were to use, their audio quality and their video quality.
The first problem I had with this review is the choice of units. The iPod Touch and iRiver Spinn are fine. They are both 8GB flash based players in the same price bracket (the iPod was £170, whilst the iRiver was £149). The third machine, the Cowan Q5, is a hard disk based 80GB player costing £320. This puts it in a completely different class of product to the others and therefore should not have been included.
The second problem is the testing conditions. The claim of the programme is that they were testing audio quality yet they cannot have used the same audio file on all three players as the programme showed the iPod Touch being used to download the test track from the iTunes Music Store. Apple uses a different compression codec for it's iPods compared to other players which will generally use MP3 or WMA. The track purchased from iTunes cannot have been played on either of the other two players so the audio comparison could possibly be influenced any differences in audio introduced by the codec.
Staying with testing conditions, the video playback feature was not tested in the same conditions for all players. The iRiver was only tested outside in a fairly open park area, whereas the other models were tested both indoors and out, with the outside being in a fairly built up area. Call me picky, but the lighting conditions being different could affect the outcome of the test.
I don't understand why The Gadget Show cannot run fair comparisons between products. If I was being cynical I would imagine it would be to skew the result towards the market leader but I have no evidence of that being the case other than the fact that the iPod Touch came out top in this case. Would it have done so if it wasn't running against the Cowan Q5? I don't know. My instincts tell me it would have, but there is now an element of doubt in my mind.
What I do know though, is that I wish the world would loose it's love affair with all things Apple, and realise that there are decent, sometimes better sounding alternatives to the iPod
The review was a comparison of three touch screen based portable media players (PMPs) - the iPod Touch, iRiver Spinn and the Cowan Q5. Testing focused around how easy the units were to use, their audio quality and their video quality.
The first problem I had with this review is the choice of units. The iPod Touch and iRiver Spinn are fine. They are both 8GB flash based players in the same price bracket (the iPod was £170, whilst the iRiver was £149). The third machine, the Cowan Q5, is a hard disk based 80GB player costing £320. This puts it in a completely different class of product to the others and therefore should not have been included.
The second problem is the testing conditions. The claim of the programme is that they were testing audio quality yet they cannot have used the same audio file on all three players as the programme showed the iPod Touch being used to download the test track from the iTunes Music Store. Apple uses a different compression codec for it's iPods compared to other players which will generally use MP3 or WMA. The track purchased from iTunes cannot have been played on either of the other two players so the audio comparison could possibly be influenced any differences in audio introduced by the codec.
Staying with testing conditions, the video playback feature was not tested in the same conditions for all players. The iRiver was only tested outside in a fairly open park area, whereas the other models were tested both indoors and out, with the outside being in a fairly built up area. Call me picky, but the lighting conditions being different could affect the outcome of the test.
I don't understand why The Gadget Show cannot run fair comparisons between products. If I was being cynical I would imagine it would be to skew the result towards the market leader but I have no evidence of that being the case other than the fact that the iPod Touch came out top in this case. Would it have done so if it wasn't running against the Cowan Q5? I don't know. My instincts tell me it would have, but there is now an element of doubt in my mind.
What I do know though, is that I wish the world would loose it's love affair with all things Apple, and realise that there are decent, sometimes better sounding alternatives to the iPod
I had a great time in London yesterday - Kate and I went to the London Studios at Waterloo to see a recording of a pilot of The Chris Moyles Quiz Show - a quiz/chat show hosted by Chris Moyles that is intended for Channel 4.
We arrived at the studio building at around 4:30pm ready for a long queue to enter the studio at the advertised time of 6:45pm. Although tickets were issued, it was still a case of first-come-first-served, so we thought we'd get there early to avoid any disappointment. The time went quite quick though since we met up with a couple who we knew were going to be there. Fortunately, they opened the doors about 20 minutes early so we got to sit down sooner.
It was slightly surreal walking though the building, looking at the pictures on the walls of the famous light entertainment stars who work or have worked there. Once we got near the studio, the carpeted, nicely painted corridors made way for a stage furniture store. We walked through the door labeled Studio 2 and suddenly I had flashbacks of being back in the high school drama studio since we were walking around the studio edge behind a large thick curtain. Eventually we arrived at our seats. We were about 5 rows back, and I was sat on an aisle seat.
Being the geek that I am, I immediately started taking in the technical side; looking for the cameras, locating the auto-cue and watching the crew prepare. I did take note of the stage as well though which contained a central desk/table, and two very large hollow box like structures on either side. On the far right was another hollow but shallow wooden structure with nothing but a black background. All of these structures appeared to be wooden. The was a rough background just in front of which was the setup for the studio band. Around the stage were chairs where those who had priority (e.g. paid for) tickets got to sit.
A person, who's name I can't remember, started to warm up the crowd at around 7pm outlining what was going to happen, telling jokes, picking on a few members of the audience (fortunately not me), rehearsing the applause, whooping and hollering and rehearsing the chorus of Sweet Caroline which would come in to play at the end of the show. He introduced Chris Moyles who came out in his casual clothing and spoke to the audience for a short while.
About twenty minutes later, the show began. For the most part it was recorded as live although nearer the end they went through what are know as 'pick-ups' - re-recordings of some parts which had gone wrong. The show was very funny. Chris had three guests - Patsy Kensit, Louis Walsh and James Nesbit. All were good, and Patsy seemed very hyper. Of course, how much of the way they acted was played we don't know.
The central theme to the show was a simple quiz based on the news over the last week. There were three rounds consisting of 5 questions. For each round, one guest would be out on stage with Chris and they'd have a chat. The other guests were off-stage behind the left hand large hollow box structure but still playing the game. A special screen was in this box which created the divide between them and Chris and the use of lighting meant that it could be controlled when those guests were visible. Questions were asked by a variety of people, but most frequently Davina McColl. Those asking the questions were not in the studio, but had pre-recorded segments. It was at this time I discovered what the shallow box on the right was - it was a fake TV screen. Chris and his guests would look at it when video was playing but nothing could be seen. I looked at one of the monitor screens and lo-and-behold the picture was there. Very clever.
The show took a while to record. It all stopped for the commercial breaks, when the bloke who warms up the audience would talk to us for a couple of minutes making sure we knew of anything coming up and basically making sure we were still being loud. The end of the show featured the looser of the quiz (Louis Walsh) singing Sweet Caroline accompanied by the studio band and us the audience. Thanks to my being on an aisle seat, I managed to get a camera pointed right at me whilst I was belting out the words! Everything wrapped up not too long after this, and we were out of the studio building by just after 9:30pm.
The only question remains - what happens now? Well as this was a pilot recording, I don't think it's all that likely that it will be broadcast on television. The show will be edited ready to be pitched to the Channel 4 executives who will make a decision on whether a series is commisioned. I believe they said a series would consist of 13 programmes, but since they are topical, by the time it goes to air, this pilot will be quite out of date.
I'll have to keep an eye on the website to see if tickets for future recordings become available.
We arrived at the studio building at around 4:30pm ready for a long queue to enter the studio at the advertised time of 6:45pm. Although tickets were issued, it was still a case of first-come-first-served, so we thought we'd get there early to avoid any disappointment. The time went quite quick though since we met up with a couple who we knew were going to be there. Fortunately, they opened the doors about 20 minutes early so we got to sit down sooner.
It was slightly surreal walking though the building, looking at the pictures on the walls of the famous light entertainment stars who work or have worked there. Once we got near the studio, the carpeted, nicely painted corridors made way for a stage furniture store. We walked through the door labeled Studio 2 and suddenly I had flashbacks of being back in the high school drama studio since we were walking around the studio edge behind a large thick curtain. Eventually we arrived at our seats. We were about 5 rows back, and I was sat on an aisle seat.
Being the geek that I am, I immediately started taking in the technical side; looking for the cameras, locating the auto-cue and watching the crew prepare. I did take note of the stage as well though which contained a central desk/table, and two very large hollow box like structures on either side. On the far right was another hollow but shallow wooden structure with nothing but a black background. All of these structures appeared to be wooden. The was a rough background just in front of which was the setup for the studio band. Around the stage were chairs where those who had priority (e.g. paid for) tickets got to sit.
A person, who's name I can't remember, started to warm up the crowd at around 7pm outlining what was going to happen, telling jokes, picking on a few members of the audience (fortunately not me), rehearsing the applause, whooping and hollering and rehearsing the chorus of Sweet Caroline which would come in to play at the end of the show. He introduced Chris Moyles who came out in his casual clothing and spoke to the audience for a short while.
About twenty minutes later, the show began. For the most part it was recorded as live although nearer the end they went through what are know as 'pick-ups' - re-recordings of some parts which had gone wrong. The show was very funny. Chris had three guests - Patsy Kensit, Louis Walsh and James Nesbit. All were good, and Patsy seemed very hyper. Of course, how much of the way they acted was played we don't know.
The central theme to the show was a simple quiz based on the news over the last week. There were three rounds consisting of 5 questions. For each round, one guest would be out on stage with Chris and they'd have a chat. The other guests were off-stage behind the left hand large hollow box structure but still playing the game. A special screen was in this box which created the divide between them and Chris and the use of lighting meant that it could be controlled when those guests were visible. Questions were asked by a variety of people, but most frequently Davina McColl. Those asking the questions were not in the studio, but had pre-recorded segments. It was at this time I discovered what the shallow box on the right was - it was a fake TV screen. Chris and his guests would look at it when video was playing but nothing could be seen. I looked at one of the monitor screens and lo-and-behold the picture was there. Very clever.
The show took a while to record. It all stopped for the commercial breaks, when the bloke who warms up the audience would talk to us for a couple of minutes making sure we knew of anything coming up and basically making sure we were still being loud. The end of the show featured the looser of the quiz (Louis Walsh) singing Sweet Caroline accompanied by the studio band and us the audience. Thanks to my being on an aisle seat, I managed to get a camera pointed right at me whilst I was belting out the words! Everything wrapped up not too long after this, and we were out of the studio building by just after 9:30pm.
The only question remains - what happens now? Well as this was a pilot recording, I don't think it's all that likely that it will be broadcast on television. The show will be edited ready to be pitched to the Channel 4 executives who will make a decision on whether a series is commisioned. I believe they said a series would consist of 13 programmes, but since they are topical, by the time it goes to air, this pilot will be quite out of date.
I'll have to keep an eye on the website to see if tickets for future recordings become available.
I just have to comment on the BBC News article regarding the launch of Freesat - the free-to-air satellite television service backed by the BBC and ITV. Not so much over the service though. More to do with some quotes given in the article.
Freesat is a rather straightforward idea, similar to Freeview, in that it provides digital television free of subscription. The idea is that it carries all the major free TV channels that we're used to from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 although as yet I don't believe there's word on whether Five is part of the line up. The big plus with the service is that it will offer HD (high definition) channels as part of the line up - something that, so far, Freeview has been unable to provide due to capacity issues. There are also plans to have the Freesat boxes connect to broadband internet so that on-demand services like the iPlayer can be used.
Now, unless I'm missing something, the "Freesat" brand is just a marketing and packaging term which will bundle TV channels broadcasting freely (i.e. not tied into a contract with Sky to only be carried on their EPG) with an open EPG that any such channel can join, with a satellite decoder and dish. That's all fine, nothing wrong with it at all.
I am curious though as to why Emma Scott from Freesat, speaking on Radio 5 Live, was quoted as saying "unlike Freeview, you can receive Freesat across the country, which means that in those areas that at the moment can't get access to free digital television this is the first time that you can get free digital TV".
If this is truely the case, then why has it also been the case that at least for the last few years, I could walk into Maplin or other such store, pick up a satellite decoder/dish package, set it up at home and watch free-to-air digital television without paying any subscriptions? I believe an HD version of this has been available for a while as well. And I could do this in an area not covered by Freeview.
Come to think of it, before I subscribed to Sky TV I bought a Sky satellite decoder box from eBay, plugged it all in and watched the free channels. Any channels not listed on Sky's EPG could simply be added to the "Other Channels" option in the menus. Okay it's not as elegant as the Maplin solution above, but does it not count as "free digital TV"?
ITV Executive Chairman Michael Grade was also quoted as saying "the final piece in the digital jigsaw that will ensure that all viewers in the UK have access to free-to-air digital and high definition TV". In a similar vain, to above, UK viewers have had access to this for a while now.
I wish people would just call things what they are, and all this is, is a packaged version of free satellite television, the only major difference being that broadband connection.
Freesat is a rather straightforward idea, similar to Freeview, in that it provides digital television free of subscription. The idea is that it carries all the major free TV channels that we're used to from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 although as yet I don't believe there's word on whether Five is part of the line up. The big plus with the service is that it will offer HD (high definition) channels as part of the line up - something that, so far, Freeview has been unable to provide due to capacity issues. There are also plans to have the Freesat boxes connect to broadband internet so that on-demand services like the iPlayer can be used.
Now, unless I'm missing something, the "Freesat" brand is just a marketing and packaging term which will bundle TV channels broadcasting freely (i.e. not tied into a contract with Sky to only be carried on their EPG) with an open EPG that any such channel can join, with a satellite decoder and dish. That's all fine, nothing wrong with it at all.
I am curious though as to why Emma Scott from Freesat, speaking on Radio 5 Live, was quoted as saying "unlike Freeview, you can receive Freesat across the country, which means that in those areas that at the moment can't get access to free digital television this is the first time that you can get free digital TV".
If this is truely the case, then why has it also been the case that at least for the last few years, I could walk into Maplin or other such store, pick up a satellite decoder/dish package, set it up at home and watch free-to-air digital television without paying any subscriptions? I believe an HD version of this has been available for a while as well. And I could do this in an area not covered by Freeview.
Come to think of it, before I subscribed to Sky TV I bought a Sky satellite decoder box from eBay, plugged it all in and watched the free channels. Any channels not listed on Sky's EPG could simply be added to the "Other Channels" option in the menus. Okay it's not as elegant as the Maplin solution above, but does it not count as "free digital TV"?
ITV Executive Chairman Michael Grade was also quoted as saying "the final piece in the digital jigsaw that will ensure that all viewers in the UK have access to free-to-air digital and high definition TV". In a similar vain, to above, UK viewers have had access to this for a while now.
I wish people would just call things what they are, and all this is, is a packaged version of free satellite television, the only major difference being that broadband connection.
The revamp of the BBC's news channel formerly known as BBC News 24, but now simply as BBC News (or the BBC News Channel) took place today with the change of name being quite a small, but quite controversial alteration.
Posted on various message boards, including responses to a BBC Blog, are comments slating the decision to drop the '24' from the 10 year old channel. Apparently, it's destroying a brand that has been built up over the channels life. Some people like to draw parallels with the ITV News Channel which folded in 2005. Of course, these people fail to realise that the brand, of course, is BBC News - a brand that the BBC are keen to enforce throughout their news outlets.
For this reason, the main bulletins on BBC One are also being renamed to BBC News at One, BBC News at Six and BBC News at Ten. But wait - ITV are using the name News at Ten! How on Earth will people differentiate between the two? Of course, the idea that someone could say to a friend 'did you see that story on BBC News last night?' doesn't enter the minds of the people who make these comments. Honestly, the way some people think, you'd believe the world would come to an end if a full stop was missing from the scrolling ticker!
The new studios look nice though. They have a very modern look, and without trying to think like a magpie - it does look shiny! There is a fault with the screen behind the presenters that make it obvious that the studio doesn't actually have a glass back onto the newsroom - a small crack to the viewers left of one of the presenters spoilt the illusion. Hopefully this will be rectified quickly.
As for the graphics, well the heavy red/black globe graphics for Top of Hour have been redone. They are a lot lighter now, with a white background with reds and oranges in the globe. I like the grey ticker, although that's something else which seems to have caused some complaints. The headline text is nice and clear, being red on white during the summary and black on white at other times.
Even the music has had a slight makeover which is nice, although I have to admit I'm not a fan of 'swooshing' sounds when the red transmission line races across the screen in the Top of Hour graphics.
My final verdict though, I like it very much and greatly prefer it to the older graphics which were getting quite tired.
My verdict on people though? Well after reading all those comments slating the national broadcaster for spending license payers money on a revamp (it was only £550,000 for goodness sake), I've decided that the vocal majority just love to moan about anything. If they had their way, news would still be one person sitting in a newsroom speaking the Queen's English to a nation watching a black and white broadcast.
I wonder if these people ever have anything good to say about anything?
Posted on various message boards, including responses to a BBC Blog, are comments slating the decision to drop the '24' from the 10 year old channel. Apparently, it's destroying a brand that has been built up over the channels life. Some people like to draw parallels with the ITV News Channel which folded in 2005. Of course, these people fail to realise that the brand, of course, is BBC News - a brand that the BBC are keen to enforce throughout their news outlets.
For this reason, the main bulletins on BBC One are also being renamed to BBC News at One, BBC News at Six and BBC News at Ten. But wait - ITV are using the name News at Ten! How on Earth will people differentiate between the two? Of course, the idea that someone could say to a friend 'did you see that story on BBC News last night?' doesn't enter the minds of the people who make these comments. Honestly, the way some people think, you'd believe the world would come to an end if a full stop was missing from the scrolling ticker!
The new studios look nice though. They have a very modern look, and without trying to think like a magpie - it does look shiny! There is a fault with the screen behind the presenters that make it obvious that the studio doesn't actually have a glass back onto the newsroom - a small crack to the viewers left of one of the presenters spoilt the illusion. Hopefully this will be rectified quickly.
As for the graphics, well the heavy red/black globe graphics for Top of Hour have been redone. They are a lot lighter now, with a white background with reds and oranges in the globe. I like the grey ticker, although that's something else which seems to have caused some complaints. The headline text is nice and clear, being red on white during the summary and black on white at other times.
Even the music has had a slight makeover which is nice, although I have to admit I'm not a fan of 'swooshing' sounds when the red transmission line races across the screen in the Top of Hour graphics.
My final verdict though, I like it very much and greatly prefer it to the older graphics which were getting quite tired.
My verdict on people though? Well after reading all those comments slating the national broadcaster for spending license payers money on a revamp (it was only £550,000 for goodness sake), I've decided that the vocal majority just love to moan about anything. If they had their way, news would still be one person sitting in a newsroom speaking the Queen's English to a nation watching a black and white broadcast.
I wonder if these people ever have anything good to say about anything?
The Gadget Show returned to British television screens today, for it's 6th series; promising an hour of 'soft' tech reviews and gadget fun.
Why soft reviews? Well there's hardly a lot of in depth discussion about the pro's and con's of a particular product especially when compared to other products that it might be tested against. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In depth reviews would turn off a lot of viewers who just want to see what the latest gadget on the street is, and what some people think of it.
However, I don't think today's comparative review of lightweight, small laptops was particularly fair.
The review focused on three laptop computers:
The problem I had with this review, is simply the choice of machines. I'm OK with the MacBook Air, and Sony Vaio - but including the Asus Eee PC in that? It only costs something along the lines of £220 compared to over £1100 for the other two. Was this a 'David vs Goliath' type test or something?
In my mind, it's a different class of computer for a different user. The Asus is designed to corner the 'cheap laptop' market and because of this does not have the processor, RAM or screen size that the other laptops have. It's a laptop that's able to take a bit of abuse due to the extremely small size meaning it can be carried nearly everywhere. I'd be terrified of causing damage to the other two and because of that, wouldn't consider them as portable since I would insist on a proper laptop bag to carry them with. The Eee PC would probably be thrown into a bag carrying everything else.
In all fairness the Gadget Show reviewers did give it the same rating as the MacBook (3 G's) but there are many other companies producing laptops to a similar specification to the Asus that I think it would have been fairer to do a comparison between them perhaps as well as a comparison between computers of the MacBook and Vaio class.
And my personal opinion on the three? The MacBook is the best looking notebook I have ever seen but I don't think I'd be happy with just one USB port. I know a hub could be used but then there's more cables, destroying that sleek look. The Vaio looks like any other laptop to me, and I'm not aware of it's specs. They said it took 3:30 to boot into Vista though, so something is seriously wrong with it's default settings and software. I've seen the Asus in a store, and it's size amazes me. It would be great for surfing from the sofa, taking on holiday, uploading stuff to this website. Granted it's not got the highest specs, but that's not what it's about.
That Asus is going on my shopping list!
Why soft reviews? Well there's hardly a lot of in depth discussion about the pro's and con's of a particular product especially when compared to other products that it might be tested against. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In depth reviews would turn off a lot of viewers who just want to see what the latest gadget on the street is, and what some people think of it.
However, I don't think today's comparative review of lightweight, small laptops was particularly fair.
The review focused on three laptop computers:
- The MacBook Air
- The Asus Eee PC
- Sony Vaio TZ31
The problem I had with this review, is simply the choice of machines. I'm OK with the MacBook Air, and Sony Vaio - but including the Asus Eee PC in that? It only costs something along the lines of £220 compared to over £1100 for the other two. Was this a 'David vs Goliath' type test or something?
In my mind, it's a different class of computer for a different user. The Asus is designed to corner the 'cheap laptop' market and because of this does not have the processor, RAM or screen size that the other laptops have. It's a laptop that's able to take a bit of abuse due to the extremely small size meaning it can be carried nearly everywhere. I'd be terrified of causing damage to the other two and because of that, wouldn't consider them as portable since I would insist on a proper laptop bag to carry them with. The Eee PC would probably be thrown into a bag carrying everything else.
In all fairness the Gadget Show reviewers did give it the same rating as the MacBook (3 G's) but there are many other companies producing laptops to a similar specification to the Asus that I think it would have been fairer to do a comparison between them perhaps as well as a comparison between computers of the MacBook and Vaio class.
And my personal opinion on the three? The MacBook is the best looking notebook I have ever seen but I don't think I'd be happy with just one USB port. I know a hub could be used but then there's more cables, destroying that sleek look. The Vaio looks like any other laptop to me, and I'm not aware of it's specs. They said it took 3:30 to boot into Vista though, so something is seriously wrong with it's default settings and software. I've seen the Asus in a store, and it's size amazes me. It would be great for surfing from the sofa, taking on holiday, uploading stuff to this website. Granted it's not got the highest specs, but that's not what it's about.
That Asus is going on my shopping list!