That Radio Sound - Compression & Limiting

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 22:59:56 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article <cjnpvc$9ei$1@panix1.panix.com>):

> 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
>

Persactly! Having said that, I've found some folks are a lot more sensitive
to the level changes that are the result of compression and limiting than
others. Maybe Don's just a lot more sensitive.

I developed a preference for gain reduction while I was in radio. It took
several years of NOT being in US radio to lose the preference. I remember
listening to some mixes a few years after I had left radio that I had made
shortly after leaving radio. TOO MUCH limiting and compression.

Maybe it's like caffeine. One can get very used to it and not realize that
life is worth living without it. I haven't gotten to that point yet myself.

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 Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:06:22 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 22:59:56 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
>(in article <cjnpvc$9ei$1@panix1.panix.com>):
>
>> 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
>>
>
>Persactly! Having said that, I've found some folks are a lot more sensitive
>to the level changes that are the result of compression and limiting than
>others. Maybe Don's just a lot more sensitive.
>
>I developed a preference for gain reduction while I was in radio. It took
>several years of NOT being in US radio to lose the preference. I remember
>listening to some mixes a few years after I had left radio that I had made
>shortly after leaving radio. TOO MUCH limiting and compression.
>
>Maybe it's like caffeine. One can get very used to it and not realize that
>life is worth living without it. I haven't gotten to that point yet myself.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford
>
>
Keep trying - please. I'm heading towards a crusade to rid the
industry of it - it really is time.

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

 

[Guest]

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

In article <415d0006.486765@news.plus.net>, donald@pearce.uk.com says...
>
>
>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:22:59 -0800, Robert Orban
><donotreply@spamblock.com> wrote:
>
>>>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
>
>Is there anybody left in the industry with the slightest idea of
>exactly how much signal to noise ratio an FM channel actually has?

Since you are a "consultant," I presume you know enough maths to plug the
numbers into the equations that allow you to calculate FM signal-to-noise. An
FM channel does not have an intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio; it is a function
of the carrier's signal strength and the background noise temperature in the
channel. In addition, multipath can cause what is essentially modulation
noise.


> It
>has more than enough by many tens of dBs to cope with any pop record
>released in the last twenty years. It also has vastly more than any
>piece of vinyl *ever* released, and it has plenty enough for any
>classical recording. So the lack of dynamic range argument is a
>non-starter.

Not if you live in the real world, where people try to listen to FM stations
in moving vehicles and, in fixed locations, on radios with line-cord antennas.

>
>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.

In most parts of the world, a deviation limiter is NOT part of the FM
transmitter. Indeed, because many of the older deviation limiter designs
introduced various unpleasant side-effects (like bass's ducking the midrange
and dullness caused by HF limiters of simplistic design), broadcasters
worldwide welcomed more modern designs like Optimods, which do not have these
problems, yet can be set up to be as gentle as the user wants.

>
>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. Now I'm sure that is a plan
>of sorts, and I can't knock it. But never try to claim that it has
>anything to do with quality. If you want quality you just leave out
>all these extraneous bits - radio does not need them.

A certain number of stations are _very_ interested in providing a quality
sound to an upscale and discerning audience, and many of these stations use
tasteful Optimod processing. When I was involved in classical music radio, I
had the experience of getting more complaints when the signal was
underprocessed (because people couldn't hear the quiet parts of
the program, particularly in cars) than when it was moderately compressed.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actually running or engineering a radio
station whose properity depended on attracting and holding an audience, I
would take your last quoted statement more seriously. As it is, you are simply
stating your preference as fact.

Bob Orban

 

[Guest]

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

I remember working at an FM station in Italy and having to deal with
the owner, the program director and the RF technicians.
Italy is probably the worst-case scenario as far as Orban-abuse.
The federal government had NO laws or restrictions concerning the
assignment of frequencies until 1992-3, which basically meant that
anyone with a big enough antenna could have a radio station.
People were also blowing up antennas etc. at one time.
In Rome every 50KHz step on the radio had Some kind of radio station.
this added up to hundreds of single stations on the dial.
The radio I worked at was the biggest in Rome and is a national
network.
I remember trying to explain that over-compression creates
listener-fatigue.
It was Mr. Orban himself that said that over-compression creates more
hits (people stop because of the louder signal) but short-term
listening.
also women are more sensitive to the distortions induced by
over-compressing and do not like the sound of over compressed
CHR--type sounding stations.
the response I used to get from the owner, who was not technically
proficent, was that I should make the signal 'loud AND clear'.
when I tried to explain that over-compression makes a signal distorted
he simply looked at me as if it was my problem...

Orban compressors were also designed to automatically EQ and 'master'
different kinds of recordings so that the sound of the radio station
remains consistent from genre to genre.

 

[mark]

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

..
>
> 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

Bob,



I'm sure your products are very good and capable of excellent sounding
results when set for moderate processing. However, excessive
processing seems to be the rule rather than the exception on most
commercial stations. NPR seems to buck the trend thankfully. The
choice to run with excessive processing is the choice of the radio
station and I do not blame you for that.

But I do ask for your help in educating the radio industry to change
the trend. Educate them about listener fatigue. I get so tired of
listening to over compressed music that I actually turn the volume
down or turn the radio off entirely after 15 minutes. Usually I just
tune to NPR for a break. The days of tuning across the AM dial and
stopping on the loudest signal are long gone. Educate them that the
way to hold listeners for the long term and to encourage them to
actually turn the volume up, is to run with light compression. One of
the attractions of satellite radio is the wide dynamic range sound.
If anybody can help turn this around, it's you Bob.

thanks for listening
Mark

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:06:47 -0800, Robert Orban
<donotreply@spamblock.com> wrote:

>In article <415d0006.486765@news.plus.net>, donald@pearce.uk.com says...
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:22:59 -0800, Robert Orban
>><donotreply@spamblock.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>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
>>
>>Is there anybody left in the industry with the slightest idea of
>>exactly how much signal to noise ratio an FM channel actually has?
>
>Since you are a "consultant," I presume you know enough maths to plug the
>numbers into the equations that allow you to calculate FM signal-to-noise. An
>FM channel does not have an intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio; it is a function
>of the carrier's signal strength and the background noise temperature in the
>channel. In addition, multipath can cause what is essentially modulation
>noise.
>

Multipath distortion does not cause noise - it causes distortion -
particularly in sibilants. This is particularly noticeable when those
sibilants have been enhanced by audio processing.

>
>> It
>>has more than enough by many tens of dBs to cope with any pop record
>>released in the last twenty years. It also has vastly more than any
>>piece of vinyl *ever* released, and it has plenty enough for any
>>classical recording. So the lack of dynamic range argument is a
>>non-starter.
>
>Not if you live in the real world, where people try to listen to FM stations
>in moving vehicles and, in fixed locations, on radios with line-cord antennas.
>

In the real world, FM stations have come a long, long way since the
days when we were short of signal strength. And in moving vehicles the
big problem is - as you already mentioned - multipath caused by a poor
operating environment and omnidirectional antennas.

>>
>>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.
>
>In most parts of the world, a deviation limiter is NOT part of the FM
>transmitter. Indeed, because many of the older deviation limiter designs
>introduced various unpleasant side-effects (like bass's ducking the midrange
>and dullness caused by HF limiters of simplistic design), broadcasters
>worldwide welcomed more modern designs like Optimods, which do not have these
>problems, yet can be set up to be as gentle as the user wants.
>
Gentle as in zero - far better. With the majority of sources now being
digital, it is possible to define maximum deviation exactly.

>>
>>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. Now I'm sure that is a plan
>>of sorts, and I can't knock it. But never try to claim that it has
>>anything to do with quality. If you want quality you just leave out
>>all these extraneous bits - radio does not need them.
>
>A certain number of stations are _very_ interested in providing a quality
>sound to an upscale and discerning audience, and many of these stations use
>tasteful Optimod processing. When I was involved in classical music radio, I
>had the experience of getting more complaints when the signal was
>underprocessed (because people couldn't hear the quiet parts of
>the program, particularly in cars) than when it was moderately compressed.
>Perhaps if you had any experience with actually running or engineering a radio
>station whose properity depended on attracting and holding an audience, I
>would take your last quoted statement more seriously. As it is, you are simply
>stating your preference as fact.
>
>Bob Orban

As opposed to you, who have not only expressed your opinion as fact,
but then effectively preventing anybody who disagrees from enjoying
their own preference.

Welcome to the artificial, processed world of Orban.

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

 

[Guest]

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

donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce) wrote:

>As opposed to you, who have not only expressed your opinion as fact,
>but then effectively preventing anybody who disagrees from enjoying
>their own preference.
>
>Welcome to the artificial, processed world of Orban.

Don, this last part was really uncalled for.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http/www.ITRstudio.com/

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:07:46 -0500, Harvey Gerst
<harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:

>donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>>As opposed to you, who have not only expressed your opinion as fact,
>>but then effectively preventing anybody who disagrees from enjoying
>>their own preference.
>>
>>Welcome to the artificial, processed world of Orban.
>
>Don, this last part was really uncalled for.
>

So you like that artificial, processed sound? Just another opinion.
Personally I like people to sound like people; maybe that puts me in
the minority, but never ever tell me that expressing such a sentiment
is uncalled for.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:41688b6d.152674562@news.plus.net

> So you like that artificial, processed sound? Just another opinion.
> Personally I like people to sound like people; maybe that puts me in
> the minority, but never ever tell me that expressing such a sentiment
> is uncalled for.

More to the point - I don't like listening to music in a car. But I don't
like not being able to listen to music in a car, even more. Get it?

(apologies for the double negative.)

Orban is a great engineer that we should all show a lot of respect and
deference to. Yes, he made a device that can be technically abused, but one
man's technical abuse can figuratively save another man's life.

 

[Guest]

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

donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:07:46 -0500, Harvey Gerst
><harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>
>>donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>
>>>As opposed to you, who have not only expressed your opinion as fact,
>>>but then effectively preventing anybody who disagrees from enjoying
>>>their own preference.
>>>
>>>Welcome to the artificial, processed world of Orban.

>>Don, this last part was really uncalled for.

>So you like that artificial, processed sound? Just another opinion.
>Personally I like people to sound like people; maybe that puts me in
>the minority, but never ever tell me that expressing such a sentiment
>is uncalled for.

Don, you presume a great deal. I deplore your personal attack on Bob Orban.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http/www.ITRstudio.com/

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:44:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>news:41688b6d.152674562@news.plus.net
>
>> So you like that artificial, processed sound? Just another opinion.
>> Personally I like people to sound like people; maybe that puts me in
>> the minority, but never ever tell me that expressing such a sentiment
>> is uncalled for.
>
>More to the point - I don't like listening to music in a car. But I don't
>like not being able to listen to music in a car, even more. Get it?
>
I generally listen to CDs in my car. I don't need to impose any
further compression to them to make them perfectly enjoyable, and as
far as I am concerned the artist and producer are the final arbiters
of how a piece should sound - not some talantless radio engineer, and
certainly not some box of electronic tricks.

>(apologies for the double negative.)
>
>Orban is a great engineer that we should all show a lot of respect and
>deference to. Yes, he made a device that can be technically abused, but one
>man's technical abuse can figuratively save another man's life.
>
You can defer to whom you wish, but please don't instruct me in this
matter. It is not Orban's qualities as an engineer I am concerned with
- it is what his product does that is the problem. Even when it is
used "properly" it produces an effect that I find objectionable. When
it is used the way it is in 99% of cases the sound makes me simply
move to another station. Since there aren't that many that don't do
it, that means I don't listen to much radio.

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:16:50 -0500, Harvey Gerst
<harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:

>donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:07:46 -0500, Harvey Gerst
>><harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>>donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>>
>>>>As opposed to you, who have not only expressed your opinion as fact,
>>>>but then effectively preventing anybody who disagrees from enjoying
>>>>their own preference.
>>>>
>>>>Welcome to the artificial, processed world of Orban.
>
>>>Don, this last part was really uncalled for.
>
>>So you like that artificial, processed sound? Just another opinion.
>>Personally I like people to sound like people; maybe that puts me in
>>the minority, but never ever tell me that expressing such a sentiment
>>is uncalled for.
>
>Don, you presume a great deal. I deplore your personal attack on Bob Orban.
>
I suggest you read again, Harvey. The attack is not a personal one on
Orban, but an attack on what I consider to be one of the most
objectionable pieces of kit in the audio industry. I find it
objectionable in its concept, and particularly so in its application.
I've never met Orban, and for all I know he is a charming man who is
kind to small children and kittens. I'm not concerned with that. You
will have to find something else to deplore.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>
>I suggest you read again, Harvey. The attack is not a personal one on
>Orban, but an attack on what I consider to be one of the most
>objectionable pieces of kit in the audio industry. I find it
>objectionable in its concept, and particularly so in its application.
>I've never met Orban, and for all I know he is a charming man who is
>kind to small children and kittens. I'm not concerned with that. You
>will have to find something else to deplore.

The reason we find it deplorable is because Orban is on _your_ side
and you don't seem to realize it. You are attacking your strongest ally.
--scott

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ck681e$fj5$1@panix2.panix.com
> Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>>
>> I suggest you read again, Harvey. The attack is not a personal one on
>> Orban, but an attack on what I consider to be one of the most
>> objectionable pieces of kit in the audio industry. I find it
>> objectionable in its concept, and particularly so in its application.
>> I've never met Orban, and for all I know he is a charming man who is
>> kind to small children and kittens. I'm not concerned with that. You
>> will have to find something else to deplore.
>
> The reason we find it deplorable is because Orban is on _your_ side
> and you don't seem to realize it. You are attacking your strongest
> ally.

Exactly. We're getting plenty of lessons in that right now from a certain
Aussie.

 

[Guest]

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

On 8 Oct 2004 10:25:50 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>>
>>I suggest you read again, Harvey. The attack is not a personal one on
>>Orban, but an attack on what I consider to be one of the most
>>objectionable pieces of kit in the audio industry. I find it
>>objectionable in its concept, and particularly so in its application.
>>I've never met Orban, and for all I know he is a charming man who is
>>kind to small children and kittens. I'm not concerned with that. You
>>will have to find something else to deplore.
>
>The reason we find it deplorable is because Orban is on _your_ side
>and you don't seem to realize it. You are attacking your strongest ally.
>--scott

No he isn't - he makes these things and I believe they should have no
place in any signal path.

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:38:33 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article <4166342e.130352656@news.plus.net>):

> In the real world, FM stations have come a long, long way since the days when

> we were short of signal strength. And in moving vehicles the big problem is -

> as you already mentioned - multipath caused by a poor operating environment
> and omnidirectional antennas.

In the real world, road noise is the problem and gain reduction is the cure.
My new Acura is pretty darn quiet. Regardless, the Chopin piano CD drops down
into the noise way too frequently to be appreciated.

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?)

In article <25GdnTDDId9Kc_vcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:38:33 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
> (in article <4166342e.130352656@news.plus.net>):
>
> > In the real world, FM stations have come a long, long way since the days
> > when
>
> > we were short of signal strength. And in moving vehicles the big problem is
> > -
>
> > as you already mentioned - multipath caused by a poor operating environment
> > and omnidirectional antennas.
>
> In the real world, road noise is the problem and gain reduction is the cure.
> My new Acura is pretty darn quiet. Regardless, the Chopin piano CD drops down
> into the noise way too frequently to be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>

I just bought a new Accord and the noise level is surprisingly low: the Dinah
Washington and Ella Fitzgerald CDs never drop below ambient noise. Of course,
my last car was a '90 Geo Prizm and that wasn't quiet by any definition.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http/www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http/ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:44:55 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article <41688b6d.152674562@news.plus.net>):

> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:07:46 -0500, Harvey Gerst
> <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>
>> donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>
>>> As opposed to you, who have not only expressed your opinion as fact,
>>> but then effectively preventing anybody who disagrees from enjoying
>>> their own preference.
>>>
>>> Welcome to the artificial, processed world of Orban.
>>
>> Don, this last part was really uncalled for.
>>
>
> So you like that artificial, processed sound? Just another opinion.
> Personally I like people to sound like people; maybe that puts me in
> the minority, but never ever tell me that expressing such a sentiment
> is uncalled for.
>
> d
> Pearce Consulting
> http/www.pearce.uk.com

In the context you used it, it appeared to be unduly harsh.

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, 8 Oct 2004 09:44:41 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <7LKdnfoH4azDBPvcRVn-hg@comcast.com>):

> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:41688b6d.152674562@news.plus.net
>
>> So you like that artificial, processed sound? Just another opinion.
>> Personally I like people to sound like people; maybe that puts me in
>> the minority, but never ever tell me that expressing such a sentiment
>> is uncalled for.
>
> More to the point - I don't like listening to music in a car. But I don't
> like not being able to listen to music in a car, even more. Get it?
>
> (apologies for the double negative.)


Is that a "no-no"?

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?)

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:08:54 -0400, Mark wrote
(in article <3367f36e.0410080508.5280d112@posting.google.com>):

> .
>>
>> 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
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm sure your products are very good and capable of excellent sounding
> results when set for moderate processing. However, excessive
> processing seems to be the rule rather than the exception on most
> commercial stations. NPR seems to buck the trend thankfully. The
> choice to run with excessive processing is the choice of the radio
> station and I do not blame you for that.
>
> But I do ask for your help in educating the radio industry to change
> the trend. Educate them about listener fatigue. I get so tired of
> listening to over compressed music that I actually turn the volume
> down or turn the radio off entirely after 15 minutes. Usually I just
> tune to NPR for a break. The days of tuning across the AM dial and
> stopping on the loudest signal are long gone.

Unfortunately, no they are not.

Educate them that the
> way to hold listeners for the long term and to encourage them to
> actually turn the volume up, is to run with light compression. One of
> the attractions of satellite radio is the wide dynamic range sound.
> If anybody can help turn this around, it's you Bob.
>
> thanks for listening
> Mark

Not even Bob can do this. I've seen him try for years.

BTW, one of the detractions of satellite radio (currently) is the amount of
data compression they use. You don't see Don wailing all over the inventors
of said data reduction, do you?

Ty Ford



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