Should the DRS be mandatory?

[DeltaAlpha]

Well, I've been pondering and playing around a bit, sussex, and most of the unexplained sounds can be filtered out. The 'second' sound that were were discussing practically disappears with filtering to -30db below about 2kHz, but the marble clicks are hardly affected. However, that strikes me as far too high a frequency for a cricket bat and ball, so I'm going to wait till the chap next door returns from holiday and try with a golf ball; that may produce more relevant results with fewer oddities.

[sussexpob]

Well, I've been pondering and playing around a bit, sussex, and most of the unexplained sounds can be filtered out. The 'second' sound that were were discussing practically disappears with filtering to -30db below about 2kHz, but the marble clicks are hardly affected. However, that strikes me as far too high a frequency for a cricket bat and ball, so I'm going to wait till the chap next door returns from holiday and try with a golf ball; that may produce more relevant results with fewer oddities.

Dont know if it is luck, but yes, the way to do it is to cut frequencies that interfere with the main sound and never increase or boost if possible, because the more amplitude you add the worse it sounds. The best thing to do, and it seems you have worked out most of this yourself, is to increase the frequency much higher and test this boosted frequency at all levels of sound. When you get the clearest sound with no interference you have found its fundamental frequency, which will then give clarity to the sound when this frequency is stood out. On your EQ setup I would also(if you can) turn up the attack, lower the decay and sustain... you only need the snick. I would then set your sampling rate and bit rate depth to its maximum levels.

Id also test your camera in a few positions to see which is best.... and remember that if you are cutting frequencies do so very narrowly.... if you boost then do so very steadily... (ie if you are removing 2kHz then remove only that, if you are boosting a frequency then make sure it is graduated to frequencies around it).

Lastly, hardly any resonant/fundamental frequency is in the extremes, or any sounds.... you will only get interference and overtones, so consider cutting a lot of the high frequencies in a gradually way to silence at the maximum frequency, and do the same for the low frequencies to a point of about 30-50 hz

[DeltaAlpha]

Thanks, sussex!

I have very little experience in enhancing audio, and all I did was to apply a 'step' filter - i.e. -30db up to 2kHz and 0db above that. Very crude, I know, but it did make a definite difference. If I moved the step up to 3kHz, practically everything disappeared. So I guessed that the significant frequency was around 2kHz, which, as I said, I think is too high.

I'm not sure that attack and decay times come into it with this type of filter, but I think I will wait till I get a golf ball so that the frequencies are a bit more realistic. Pity there are no sports shops anywhere near where I live!

This is some information about the audio in the file downloaded from the camera:

Format : PCM
Format settings, Sign : Unsigned
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 88.2 kbps
Channel(s) : 1 channel
Sampling rate : 11.024 kHz
Bit depth : 8 bits

The bit rate and sampling rate seem quite low to me, but may be adequate for this purpose.

[DeltaAlpha]

I got hold of a golf ball this morning and repeated the experiment. I evidently caught a very fine edge on the table, though I actually thought it had missed; this is the result:



The main difference is that all the extraneous clicks in the waveform are gone, and, on looking at the entire waveform (about 25 seconds), it was plain to see that I'd dropped the ball four times - twice hitting the top of the table, once missing entirely and the one shown. This wasn't possible with the marble because of the extraneous clicks.

The clicks in the waveform are much bigger for the cases where the ball hit the top of the table but for a fine edge like the one shown it's still clear enough that there was a nick, even though deviation of the ball is hard to see.

The peak frequency in the waveform is about 400Hz compared to about 2kHz with the marble, so I think that's far more realistic.

Would you find a composite picture like the one above to be more convincing than the animation that's currently used for Snicko?

[sussexpob]

I cant see the picture on my current computer due to my work laptop filtering system... Ill check later DA

[DeltaAlpha]

OK, sussex. You can see the video here:

http://s903.photobucket.com/user/d_ains ... p.mp4.html

It's very short, and doesn't always play correctly, so you may need to replay it a few times. YouTube won't work at all with a video as short as this; the length of the video is the same as the time corresponding to the waveform in the picture posted above - 300ms, and there hasn't been any tampering with the audio/video synchronisation.

[Aidan11]

More reviews coming

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/24146575

[D/L]

The change the ICC should have made was not to chalk off a review after the decision, "umpire's call", is given. In such cases, review requests are rarely trivial or tactical in nature.

A new set of reviews after 80 overs will only exacerbate the current problems.

Well done, the ICC; yet another complete failure to miss the obvious in dealing with one of the game's problems.

[andy]

this new ruling is an absolute joke IMO!

[Arthur Crabtree]

It's a strange conclusion to come to in response to the problems of the summer. Unless it's just because the cricket committee thinks the umpires are rubbish.

[hopeforthebest]

Maybe it's an Indian plot to make more countries rail against DRS.

[DiligentDefence]

The change the ICC should have made was not to chalk off a review after the decision, "umpire's call", is given. In such cases, review requests are rarely trivial or tactical in nature.

A new set of reviews after 80 overs will only exacerbate the current problems.

Well done, the ICC; yet another complete failure to miss the obvious in dealing with one of the game's problems.

I entirely agree D/L.

[D/L]

I see that "Hot Spot" will not feature in the DRS for the Ashes series down under. The decision has apparently been made on the grounds of cost, yet it's hard to see how £6k a day is in any way significant in the money fest that is an Ashes series.

The decision must surely be a mistake. Strauss says he supports it because it's not 100% foolproof, but what is? A technology that can show where contact has been made between bat and ball should not be discarded.

[andy]

its ridiclous that they keep taking bits and pieces out of it...

you either use it all, or you use nothing!

[KipperJohn]

Should the DRS be mandatory? No it should be scrapped.

Umpiring is as much a human activity, with all its frailties as is playing the game. As a spectator and viewer I am sick to the back teeth of endless replays, diagrams, discussions, referrals, and ghostly images which have no place on a cricket field.

Equally importantly, I should be allowed the right and independence to make up my own mind about whether a decision is right or wrong from what I see- it's part of the enjoyment of the game.

The erosion of the concept of taking personal responsibility is one of the biggest failings of modern society - equally reflected in sport.

Oh to be able to switch on the TV and just watch a game of cricket - fat chance!