That Radio Sound - Compression & Limiting

[Guest]

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> 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.

This is what happens when one decides CD's played in a car are
"perfectly listenable". From there it's all downhill.

--
ha

 

[Guest]

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

Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

Bob's detailed r.a.p discussion of much of those points is nicely
archived at Google. He has been there and done that, but who can teach
pigs to sing?

--
ha

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce wrote:

> So my preference for high fidelity now merits swearing?

You actually use "high fidelity" for what you hear in a car? Enough
said.

--
ha

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:47:35 -0400, 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
>
Really? I find I can deal with that stuff with no problems.

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:54:53 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>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, at least the data reduction types are doing their level best to
preserve fidelity as much as they can. I applaud that.

I can and will wail over those whose ambitions are diametrically
opposed - as Optimod users are.

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:59:57 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article <416af14c.178754015@news.plus.net>):

> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:54:53 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 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, at least the data reduction types are doing their level best to
> preserve fidelity as much as they can. I applaud that.
>
> I can and will wail over those whose ambitions are diametrically
> opposed - as Optimod users are.
>
> d
> Pearce Consulting
> http/www.pearce.uk.com

I find it absolutely fascinating that humans can be so complex. Hopefully
that will not be misconstrued as being self-indulgent.

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 16:10:07 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> Ty, at least the data reduction types are doing their level best to
>> preserve fidelity as much as they can. I applaud that.
>>
>> I can and will wail over those whose ambitions are diametrically
>> opposed - as Optimod users are.
>>
>> d
>> Pearce Consulting
>> http/www.pearce.uk.com
>
>I find it absolutely fascinating that humans can be so complex. Hopefully
>that will not be misconstrued as being self-indulgent.
>
>Ty Ford
>

Well, nobody ever accused me of simplicity.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1glbzok.1a16qde18ydk6xN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> This is what happens when one decides CD's played in a car are
> "perfectly listenable". From there it's all downhill.

I was stunned to learn that some cars actually had record players. Where
there any standard production cars that had this? I assume they had some
kind of shock-absorber?

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:18:08 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
<rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
>news:1glbzok.1a16qde18ydk6xN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> This is what happens when one decides CD's played in a car are
>> "perfectly listenable". From there it's all downhill.
>
>I was stunned to learn that some cars actually had record players. Where
>there any standard production cars that had this? I assume they had some
>kind of shock-absorber?
>
Very rudimentary shock absorption. What they had mainly was a stylus
force that would carve its way through the disc in about ten plays. I
think maybe they had a swarf collection tray at the bottom that you
emptied when you did the ash trays.

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:416cf62d.180003375@news.plus.net...
>>
> Very rudimentary shock absorption. What they had mainly was a stylus
> force that would carve its way through the disc in about ten plays. I
> think maybe they had a swarf collection tray at the bottom that you
> emptied when you did the ash trays.

Wow.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:18:08 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
<rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I was stunned to learn that some cars actually had record players. Where
>there any standard production cars that had this? I assume they had some
>kind of shock-absorber?

I was once given one from a Chrysler. Looked to have lived in the
glove compartment, and may have required center hole adapters.

My always-foggy memory is of a quarter inch spindle but only
enough space for at most a ten inch record. Suspension was
tapered coil springs and (rotted) dampers.

I never had the heart to try to run it, and found somebody more
dedicated to give it a home.

Chris Hornbeck

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:06:47 -0800, Robert Orban
> <donotreply@spamblock.com> wrote:
>
>> Not if you live in the real world, where people try to listen to FM stations
>> 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 most FM receivers have become a lot, lot worse.

Don't even ask about the antennae.

 

[Guest]

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

Ty Ford wrote:
>
> 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.

As we transition to digital media delivery, the solution I'd like to see would feature compression metatags embedded in the stream, so that the end user (or end-user's equipment) could decide how to best manage the dynamic range to suit the playback conditions.

 

[Guest]

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

Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
>
> I was stunned to learn that some cars actually had record players. Where
> there any standard production cars that had this? I assume they had some
> kind of shock-absorber?

Available on late '50's and early '60s Imperials for sure, even a (rare) changer option.
<http/imperialclub.com/Repair/Accessories/HiWay/SpottersGuide.htm>
<http/imperialclub.com/Repair/Accessories/HiWay/60Spotter.htm>

 

[mark]

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

donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce) wrote in message news:<416af14c.178754015@news.plus.net>...
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:54:53 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >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, at least the data reduction types are doing their level best to
> preserve fidelity as much as they can. I applaud that.
>
> I can and will wail over those whose ambitions are diametrically
> opposed - as Optimod users are.
>
> d
> Pearce Consulting
> http/www.pearce.uk.com


Given the choice of listening to overly dynamic range compressed music
vs data compression, I choose the data compression. True it adds so
phasy swishyness to the highs, but at least there are highs and the
bass is not distorted and the dynamic range is good. It's the lesser
of two evils IMO.

Mark

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:07:58 -0400, Kurt Albershardt wrote
(in article <2spdhuF1nrtbcU6@uni-berlin.de>):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> As we transition to digital media delivery, the solution I'd like to see
> would feature compression metatags embedded in the stream, so that the end
> user (or end-user's equipment) could decide how to best manage the dynamic
> range to suit the playback conditions.
>

I'd pay a dollar for that!

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 16:20:16 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article <416cf62d.180003375@news.plus.net>):

> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:18:08 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
> <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
>> news:1glbzok.1a16qde18ydk6xN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This is what happens when one decides CD's played in a car are
>>> "perfectly listenable". From there it's all downhill.
>>
>> I was stunned to learn that some cars actually had record players. Where
>> there any standard production cars that had this? I assume they had some
>> kind of shock-absorber?
>>
> Very rudimentary shock absorption. What they had mainly was a stylus
> force that would carve its way through the disc in about ten plays. I
> think maybe they had a swarf collection tray at the bottom that you
> emptied when you did the ash trays.
>
> d
> Pearce Consulting
> http/www.pearce.uk.com

now that's funny! A necessity, but funny.

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?)

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:07:58 -0400, Kurt Albershardt wrote
>>
>> As we transition to digital media delivery, the solution I'd like to see
>> would feature compression metatags embedded in the stream, so that the end
>> user (or end-user's equipment) could decide how to best manage the dynamic
>> range to suit the playback conditions.
>
>I'd pay a dollar for that!

Dolby Surround does it... I think dts does too. It works surprisingly
well. I think on most consumer surround receivers they have a "night mode"
that takes advantage of this.
--scott

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

 

[Guest]

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

Robert Orban wrote:

> 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.

While being one of the resident purist's here in this newsgroup by the
definition that I worry about single components and bypass anything I
can bypass I also can and must agree that dynamic range scaling is an
unavoidable need in some contexts.

> 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.

What grieves me greatly is processing that translates a concert with a
wide dynamic range to only "piano" and "mezzoforte".

> 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.

Actual live music generally has a peak to average distance of some 27
dB's, including btw. acoustic jazz. For something to be "broadcastable"
- by the defintion of being playable in an apartment living room at 10
pm without neighbor complaints - it will generally need - purism or no
purism - to be reduced to the 20 dB range. It no doubt matters a lot how
that scaling is done and it is vital to understand that it IS abouit
scaling.

Which is to say the it appears that we are not in major disagreement on
this issue, I have certainly heard processing deployed by DR that
sounded nice and fully acceptable as well as some that sounded less
nice, obviously due to too short time constants being selected on the
contraption used, actual contraptions are unknown to me.

What is being done to "popular music" is a different issue, not
commented on in this context.

> Bob Orban


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http/www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

 

[Guest]

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:07:58 -0400, Kurt Albershardt wrote
>>
>>> As we transition to digital media delivery, the solution I'd like to see
>>> would feature compression metatags embedded in the stream, so that the end
>>> user (or end-user's equipment) could decide how to best manage the dynamic
>>> range to suit the playback conditions.
>>
>> I'd pay a dollar for that!
>
>
> Dolby Surround does it... I think dts does too. It works surprisingly
> well. I think on most consumer surround receivers they have a "night mode"
> that takes advantage of this.

I'm thinking of something much more sophisticated than the DRC in Dolby Digital. Hints embedded at the authoring stage which would enable the playback equipment to reduce dynamic range as the artist/producer intended, rather than simple compression.

There was a paper at the 2002 AES describing a system which had most of what I envisioned (minus the metadata):

D-2 A Consumer Adjustable Dynamic Range Control System—Keith A. McMillen, Octiv, Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA

Advances in technology have afforded listeners an available dynamic range in excess of 120 dB. While impressive in proper concert halls and listening rooms, large dynamic ranges are not always realistic for all environments and musical styles. This paper describes a practical multi-band dynamics processor software object that can reside in low cost consumer products and allow the user to adjust dynamic range to fit his or her taste and listening environment.
Convention Paper 5655

<http/octiv.com/>