That Radio Sound - Compression & Limiting

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <415d0006.486765@news.plus.net> donald@pearce.uk.com writes:

> Is there anybody left in the industry with the slightest idea of
> exactly how much signal to noise ratio an FM channel actually has? It
> has more than enough by many tens of dBs to cope with any pop record
> released in the last twenty years.

A red herring for sure. You only need about 10 dB of dynamic range for
that. A cassette recorder with no noise reduction has snough dynamic
range to cope with any pop record released in the last 20 years too.
This is a function of the record, not the transport medium.

> As for protecting channels from overdeviation, it is a regulatory
> requirement that transmitters contain such protection - they don't
> need Optimod for that, and anyway that is what the engineer is for.

What engineer? The engineer is the guy who sets up the transmitter and
dynamics processor so the studio owner won't get fined, and then he
goes fishing.

> No, Optimod is a tool seized upon by cheap and nasty radio stations
> (and yes, I know that is most of them) for making themselves as noisy
> and obnoxious as possible in order to stand out and appeal to the
> lowest common denominator in the market.

So attack the stations, not the maker of the tool they use. I still
use a box cutter even though one was blamed for starting our War on
Terror.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:27:32 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> TY, my comment was purely in reference to your published samples - not
>> your other work which as far as I know may be very good. But what you
>> put on your web site does indeed lead me to the conclusion that you
>> would like the sound of Optimod, since it is highly artificial in
>> nature. Now maybe you really do believe that everybody should like to
>> hear voices presented that way - and maybe I am indeed alone in the
>> group in preferring a natural human voice - but don't think for one
>> moment that this places you above criticism. And I'm sure that the
>> group can speak for itself if it feels offended by my preference for
>> fidelity over punch.
>>
>> d
>> Pearce Consulting
>> http/www.pearce.uk.com
>
>Dear Don,
>
>You're making broad judgements based on MP3 files? Curious.
>
>Again, having had some experience with the Optimod 8000 and 8100 (as well as
>other processors normally used and abused on air) it's still up to the
>individual to determine the degree of use and/or abuse.
>
>I support your comment if its basis is that broadcast facilities typically
>overprocess the audio. That basis, however, was not made apparent in your
>comments.
>
>My problem is that instead of discussing the issue, you chose to attack me
>professionally based on what amounts to a polaroid snapshot of audio (MP3)
>designed for purposes other than fidelity. That's quite a jump in logic.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

The attack wasn't really meant personally but against an industry
generally that values punch, apparent volume or whatever over a
faithful representation of the human voice. With music, I am happy for
artistic license to have its say, but with voice I simply won't have
it - it is too personal.

In my view there is no such thing as over-processing of voice, there
is simply processing and it is all anathema.

d
Pearce Consulting
http/www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>
> Try listening to what real people sound like
> for a bit, and strive for that instead -
> you may be pleasantly surprised.



I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I
can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective.

Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many
times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon?
Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's
face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the
luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better
make sure they hear it the first time.

Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing
other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio,
most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse.

Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering
the dreaded "Whadeesay?"

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Oct 2004 10:29:50 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <415d0006.486765@news.plus.net> donald@pearce.uk.com writes:
>
>> Is there anybody left in the industry with the slightest idea of
>> exactly how much signal to noise ratio an FM channel actually has? It
>> has more than enough by many tens of dBs to cope with any pop record
>> released in the last twenty years.
>
>A red herring for sure. You only need about 10 dB of dynamic range for
>that. A cassette recorder with no noise reduction has snough dynamic
>range to cope with any pop record released in the last 20 years too.
>This is a function of the record, not the transport medium.
>
Agreed - I was responding to Orban's claim that Optimods had something
to do with the limited available dynamic range of FM radio - bollocks
for sure.

>> As for protecting channels from overdeviation, it is a regulatory
>> requirement that transmitters contain such protection - they don't
>> need Optimod for that, and anyway that is what the engineer is for.
>
>What engineer? The engineer is the guy who sets up the transmitter and
>dynamics processor so the studio owner won't get fined, and then he
>goes fishing.
>
Good old quality control you know. If a radio station isn't prepared
to maintain a decent standard of quality, then it has no business
being on the air. If the engineer has gone fishing, fire him and go on
firing them until you find one who enjoys engineering more than
fishing.

>> No, Optimod is a tool seized upon by cheap and nasty radio stations
>> (and yes, I know that is most of them) for making themselves as noisy
>> and obnoxious as possible in order to stand out and appeal to the
>> lowest common denominator in the market.
>
>So attack the stations, not the maker of the tool they use. I still
>use a box cutter even though one was blamed for starting our War on
>Terror.

Ah! The old "its not guns that kill people, it's people that kill
people" argument. Sorry, I don't buy it.If there weren't any Optimods,
people wouldn't abuse them - and I use the term advisedly because
abuse is the only use I have ever heard.

d
Pearce Consulting
http/www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:56:38 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
<Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>>
>> Try listening to what real people sound like
>> for a bit, and strive for that instead -
>> you may be pleasantly surprised.
>
>
>
>I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I
>can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective.
>
>Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many
>times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon?
>Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's
>face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the
>luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better
>make sure they hear it the first time.
>
>Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing
>other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio,
>most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse.
>
>Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering
>the dreaded "Whadeesay?"

Don't be silly - you know perfectly well I was referring to the
quality of the voice, not the content.

d
Pearce Consulting
http/www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <415f6f93.29044546@news.plus.net> donald@pearce.uk.com writes:

> >What engineer? The engineer is the guy who sets up the transmitter and
> >dynamics processor so the studio owner won't get fined, and then he
> >goes fishing.
> >
> Good old quality control you know. If a radio station isn't prepared
> to maintain a decent standard of quality, then it has no business
> being on the air. If the engineer has gone fishing, fire him and go on
> firing them until you find one who enjoys engineering more than
> fishing.

They don't even require a meter reading test for a DJ license any
more. There may not even be a DJ license (3rd class commercial) now.

But, hey, I don't think that people who can't sing on pitch acceptably
or can't play a guitar solo or sing with proper emotional phrasing and
diction without doing it a phrase at a time should be making records
either.

> Ah! The old "its not guns that kill people, it's people that kill
> people" argument. Sorry, I don't buy it.If there weren't any Optimods,
> people wouldn't abuse them - and I use the term advisedly because
> abuse is the only use I have ever heard.

If we didn't have recorders, maybe we'd listen to more live music,
too. And in venues small enough so that we wouldn't need PA systems to
abuse.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Oct 2004 15:37:29 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <415f6f93.29044546@news.plus.net> donald@pearce.uk.com writes:
>
>> >What engineer? The engineer is the guy who sets up the transmitter and
>> >dynamics processor so the studio owner won't get fined, and then he
>> >goes fishing.
>> >
>> Good old quality control you know. If a radio station isn't prepared
>> to maintain a decent standard of quality, then it has no business
>> being on the air. If the engineer has gone fishing, fire him and go on
>> firing them until you find one who enjoys engineering more than
>> fishing.
>
>They don't even require a meter reading test for a DJ license any
>more. There may not even be a DJ license (3rd class commercial) now.
>
>But, hey, I don't think that people who can't sing on pitch acceptably
>or can't play a guitar solo or sing with proper emotional phrasing and
>diction without doing it a phrase at a time should be making records
>either.
>

I would agree to this if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly
how Dusty Springfield used to record - virtually every word was
punched. But I've heard some original unpunched tracks, and they
sounded great; she was just that much of a perfectionist.

>> Ah! The old "its not guns that kill people, it's people that kill
>> people" argument. Sorry, I don't buy it.If there weren't any Optimods,
>> people wouldn't abuse them - and I use the term advisedly because
>> abuse is the only use I have ever heard.
>
>If we didn't have recorders, maybe we'd listen to more live music,
>too. And in venues small enough so that we wouldn't need PA systems to
>abuse.

Now you've got it!!!

d
Pearce Consulting
http/www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

OK - here's the 'fix' - step #1 ...
dump the old analog gear, the hardest thing to do ...
step #2 : get something like Cool Edit Pro ( I use Audacity )
-
-
for commercials you need "dynamic compression" - which is more like a digital
controlled 'expander' - let me explain ...
First, all the compression, and limiting in the world will simply reduce the
overload point and flatten the dynamic range ...
What we use these days is digital software that samples far beyond the CD rate
of 44,100 and 192K provides far more digital resolution than any station can
play back ...
The dynamic compression simply looks at the waveform, which can have peaks at
say -6DB MAX, and simply expands the volume of each slice near that pre-set
peak, depending on the settings ... so the result is that "full" sound we all
want, but it's more about expanding and increasing volume on the lower peaks
than changing any of the 'high' peaks, so the upper range of the digital audio
is the same, only 'fuller' ...
In the online 'demo #4' I tried to really push the distortion to the peak -
the voice-over is at +3 db, the music and subliminal (!) track is at -6db, so
there is a 9 db separation - admittedly it sounds (nearly) to distortion, and
usually I make sure I'm at least -3db on any peaks, period ...
See what an old laptop and software can do - my studio fills a suitcase, with
lots of mics, cables, patch cords, headphones, etc - and I can do 36 tracks at
192K sample rate - right at the client's office/store 'on-the-spot' - as well
as mixdown/edit with a large variety of pre-recorded music 'beds' from my 2
casio keyboards ... no prob ... forget the radio production room, and the
big multitrack studio too - dump the old analog gear while you still can ...

Joe

joe@astoriamovies.com

http/www.astoriamovies.com

(demos above)

---













Robert Orban <donotreply@spamblock.com> wrote in message news:<NIidnY1pQq8sIsHcRVn-pg@giganews.com>...
> In article <415d0873.18565671@news.plus.net>, donald@pearce.uk.com says...
> >
> >
> >On 30 Sep 2004 09:11:53 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >>Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>You seem to imply that there might be some right hands for an Optimod.
> >>>Of course there are - those of a scrap metal dealer.
> >>
> >>The older Optimods are actually pretty good. If you disable the gate on
> >>them and set them up well, they can give you a little bit of extra level
> >>without being aggressive or problematic in any way.
> >>
> >>In terms of actually being able to get the modulation level up without
> >>overshoot, the Optimods do a better job than anything that came before
> >>them. Going from an Audimax/Volumax combination to an Optimod 8100 is
> >>amazing in that you can increase the transmitter modulation considerably
> >>with a decrease in perceived distortion.
> >>
> >>The problem comes when people try to do abusive things, like cranking the
> >>compression ratios on the Optimod way higher than is appropriate for mere
> >>gainriding, and start hammering the limiters. Or abusive things like
> putting
> >>three racks worth of multiband compressors in front of the Optimod.
> >>
> >>Honestly, the old 8100 is a good choice for a minimally processed classical
> >>or jazz station today... and the Optimod _can_ be used with minimal
> processing.
> >>It's a tool, and it's a tool that is often horribly abused by engineers
> >>trying to make things massively louder and destroying sound quality, but
> >>don't blame the tool for the Loudness Wars.
> >>--scott
> >
> >You reply goes to the heart of what is wrong with Optimod, and all
> >things like it. As a listener, if I need a bit of extra level, I can
> >turn up my volume control. If it is too loud, I can turn it down. I
> >certainly don't want some godawful machine doing it for me.
> >
> >Pop music generally sounds best the way the producer left it, and
> >classical sounds best completely uncompressed - there is no reason for
> >a radio station to do any level processing at all.
> >
> >As for the spoken word, even the least amount of compressions sounds
> >totally pants.
> >
> >d
> >Pearce Consulting
> >http/www.pearce.uk.com
>
>
> Don -- I'm sorry you're cross with me. However, I presume that you
> understand that the FM channel does not have an infinite signal-to-noise
> ratio. Eliminating all forms of protection processing will cause many
> potential listeners of a given radio station to be unable to enjoy that
> station because quiet parts of the program are contaminated by noise. "Turning
> up the volume control" also turns up the noise and hence, does not address the
> problem.
>
> In the days of monophonic FM and outdoor aerials, this was less of a problem.
> However, FM stereo introduced a noise penalty of approximately 20 dB, and few
> people use outddor aerials anymore.
>
> All DSP-based FM Optimods, BTW, offer the ability to configure the unit for
> various forms of "purist" processing. The most purist of these offers
> protection limiting that introduces no compression at all with normal input
> levels, and only does the amount of HF limiting and peak limiting necessary to
> protect the channel from overdeviation.
>
> Bob Orban

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I would agree to this if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly
how Dusty Springfield used to record - virtually every word was
punched. But I've heard some original unpunched tracks, and they
sounded great; she was just that much of a perfectionist. >>



Same with Streisand, who has the ability to sing great, but wants the ability
to obsess over every single syllable. Lots & lots of takes & lots & lots of
comping.
Scott Fraser

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20041002031214.01852.00001511@mb-m13.aol.com> scotfraser@aol.com writes:

> Same with Streisand, who has the ability to sing great, but wants the ability
> to obsess over every single syllable. Lots & lots of takes & lots & lots of
> comping.

Must be nice to be rich and eccentric. When you have that kind of
money to put behind your sessions, you can pay engineers who will
go along with that nonsense. I guess I would, too, if I could get paid
what Streisand & Co. can afford. But probably only once.

It's not that I'm not a perfectionist, I just don't have the patience
to go along for the ride with that kind of perfectionist.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:


> It's not that I'm not a perfectionist, I just don't have the patience
> to go along for the ride with that kind of perfectionist.

Not even by the hour (and hour and hour...)?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:53:52 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article <415e6080.25184828@news.plus.net>):

> In my view there is no such thing as over-processing of voice, there
> is simply processing and it is all anathema.
>
> d
> Pearce Consulting
> http/www.pearce.uk.com

You must be a very unhappy person in this world today.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:56:38 -0400, Lorin David Schultz wrote
(in article <Gee7d.6584$223.3967@edtnps89>):

> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote
>>
>> Try listening to what real people sound like
>> for a bit, and strive for that instead -
>> you may be pleasantly surprised.
>
>
>
> I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I
> can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective.
>
> Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many
> times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon?
> Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's
> face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the
> luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better
> make sure they hear it the first time.
>
> Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing
> other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio,
> most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse.
>
> Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering
> the dreaded "Whadeesay?"


There's a compelling statement (no aphex hype intended). When recording
normal humans (as opposed to VO pros or actors) I never cease to be amazed at
how different voices are. The tendency to drop off at the end of each
sentence as the lungs empty is often a problem.

Even in mixing vocals for music projects, I find that fixing the vocal track
involves boosting a word or phrase here and there to make the words audible.
Don, I'm guessing that you may also like your printed word the same
unadulterated way. When I do an interview for an article, I usually send the
words back so they interviewee can take his/her foot out of his/her mouth.
Other writers I know absolutely will not change anything. "They said it. I'm
printing it!"

My experience is that people frequently talk out of their butts, myself
included. The point is (for me) to present the information in the best way to
the reader. If that means restating, then that's OK.

Then there's the idea that no mic/preamp can actually capture the voice with
absolute fidelity. What do you use and why? What limitations do you
encounter?

Regards,

Ty



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering
>> the dreaded "Whadeesay?"
>
> Don't be silly - you know perfectly well I was referring to the
> quality of the voice, not the content.

Hmm, for me the ability or lack thereof of the voice to maintain level is
part of the quality of the voice; voice as instrument. Guess it could be
construed as the performance rather than the voice.

But you're still against processing. So how do you rationalize the
performance variations?

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:19:05 -0400, Joe Altieri wrote
(in article <d7793b53.0410011919.1ff04636@posting.google.com>):

> OK - here's the 'fix' - step #1 ...
> dump the old analog gear, the hardest thing to do ...
> step #2 : get something like Cool Edit Pro ( I use Audacity )
> -
> -
> for commercials you need "dynamic compression" - which is more like a digital
> controlled 'expander' - let me explain ...
> First, all the compression, and limiting in the world will simply reduce the
> overload point and flatten the dynamic range ...
> What we use these days is digital software that samples far beyond the CD
> rate
> of 44,100 and 192K provides far more digital resolution than any station can
> play back ...

Well that can be said of most live operatic performances. Most of the ones
recorded onto LP or CD have been gain reduced so they fit within the Usable
Dynamic Range of the media or medium. Video and film are similar in that they
can't really capture differences in light across as wide a spectrum as the
human eye.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>But you're still against processing. So how do you rationalize the
>performance variations?

I tend to be against processing as much as possible, and in the case of
broadcast work I think the performance variations are just part of what
make things interesting.

But, because FM does have limited dynamic range (and the truth is that
the dynamic range when you have full quieting is excellent, but out in
a fringe area it can be pretty poor), and as a result gain riding at least
is needed.

It's true that compression on FM buys you a lot less in terms of improved
service area than it does with AM, since the FM capture phenomenon means
there is really only a narrow range of signal strength between full quieting
and no reception at all.

If you're against manual gain riding, that's one thing. But if you're
okay with manual gain riding, how do you feel about a box like the Audimax
which basically tries to emulate the same process?

In a typical classical chain, you'll have a limiter that kicks on every
minute or so. Do you object to that? Very light limiting can buy you
a lot, for very little sonic loss (and the BBC has been using it since
the fifties). You can think of this as being safety limiting rather than
processing if that makes you feel better.

There is a huge range between no processing at all and the massively aggressive
overprocessing that is the norm even in small markets here in the US.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Joe Altieri" <joe@astoriamovies.com> wrote
>
> See what an old laptop and software can do - my studio fills a
suitcase, with
> lots of mics, cables, patch cords, headphones, etc - and I can do 36
tracks at
> 192K sample rate - right at the client's office/store 'on-the-spot' -
as well
> as mixdown/edit with a large variety of pre-recorded music 'beds' from
my 2
> casio keyboards ... no prob ... forget the radio production room, and
the
> big multitrack studio too - dump the old analog gear while you still
can ...



True, with one caveat: you can't carry a decent room in a suitcase. I
can edit anywhere, but I still need a decent room to record in. You
wouldn't believe how many tracks I've had clients reject after they were
recorded because objectionable room effects were just too severe.

One should obviously also mix in a decent environment, but that's yet
another diatribe.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <SI2dnakG6KGcdcPcRVn-iA@omsoft.com> nopsam@nospam.net writes:

> > It's not that I'm not a perfectionist, I just don't have the patience
> > to go along for the ride with that kind of perfectionist.
>
> Not even by the hour (and hour and hour...)?

My point, exactly. I'm not that much of a whore.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2 Oct 2004 11:36:31 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>But you're still against processing. So how do you rationalize the
>>performance variations?
>
>I tend to be against processing as much as possible, and in the case of
>broadcast work I think the performance variations are just part of what
>make things interesting.
>
>But, because FM does have limited dynamic range (and the truth is that
>the dynamic range when you have full quieting is excellent, but out in
>a fringe area it can be pretty poor), and as a result gain riding at least
>is needed.
>
>It's true that compression on FM buys you a lot less in terms of improved
>service area than it does with AM, since the FM capture phenomenon means
>there is really only a narrow range of signal strength between full quieting
>and no reception at all.
>
>If you're against manual gain riding, that's one thing. But if you're
>okay with manual gain riding, how do you feel about a box like the Audimax
>which basically tries to emulate the same process?
>
>In a typical classical chain, you'll have a limiter that kicks on every
>minute or so. Do you object to that? Very light limiting can buy you
>a lot, for very little sonic loss (and the BBC has been using it since
>the fifties). You can think of this as being safety limiting rather than
>processing if that makes you feel better.
>
>There is a huge range between no processing at all and the massively aggressive
>overprocessing that is the norm even in small markets here in the US.
>--scott

Funnily enough, manual gain riding doesn't bother me much. It tends to
be applied sympathetically, and doesn't have that loathsome pumping
and breathing effect that so many radio stations have with their
mis-applied automatic systems.

d
Pearce Consulting
http/www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>
>Funnily enough, manual gain riding doesn't bother me much. It tends to
>be applied sympathetically, and doesn't have that loathsome pumping
>and breathing effect that so many radio stations have with their
>mis-applied automatic systems.

Listen to some of the NBC Toscanini recordings, and you can hear manual
gain riding that will bother you just as much. At least, it drives me
up the wall.

There's no excuse for pumping and breathing, though. Don't dismiss
the concept because it's being misapplied.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."