FM processing: Can it be tweaked to emulate another stations sound?

[fordranger797]

I noticed the other day that the processing for the radio station I work for sounds a little flat compared to stations in large markets. I was told that the processing is set a certain way as a programming choice, and that it is intended to sound a little on the flat side, but it still got me thinking about how it could potentially be manipulated if they were to replicate the sound of a major station.

Getting to the point: is it possible to replicate another station's sound by applying the exact same settings on the equipment that we already use, or are specific processing components required?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

To get the exact same sound, you need the exact same equipment in the same condition. Someone could probably make it sound less "flat" as you say, but you'll never sound like KRTH.

 

[Kelly A]

To be clear, the answer is probably not, by simply duplicating the audio processing brand, model, or settings. The entire audio program and transmission chain, from the microphone to the antenna, contribute to the way the station 'sounds'.

 

[fordranger797]

To be clear, the answer is probably not, by simply duplicating the audio processing brand, model, or settings. The entire audio program and transmission chain, from the microphone to the antenna, contribute to the way the station 'sounds'.

Okay, thanks, Kelly. They're in the process of making a few updates so I'm curious to see if there will be any noticeable difference.

 

[davideduardo]

To be clear, the answer is probably not, by simply duplicating the audio processing brand, model, or settings. The entire audio program and transmission chain, from the microphone to the antenna, contribute to the way the station 'sounds'.

Traditionally, KRTH has used either heavily modified gear or devices built at the station.

At one point, they asked for actual dubs of the master tapes of the songs they played.

The audio chain was in a rack with a smoked glass door and it was locked.

Today's processors have such versatile settings ranges that much of that is not necessary. And engineers have to deal with multiple stations, so have less time. Management, less than ever, sees engineering as a competitive tool to be used to get ahead of the competition.

 

[Kelly A]

Sounds like the days where Frank Foti was adding circuits and parts to processors, naming it "The Vigilante". Back in the 80's a station our company bought was doing the magic processing rack thing. Behind the keyed smoked glass door, were two modified UREI crossovers, six UREI LA3A compressors, feeding six UREI LA4 compressors (three of each per channel) to a mixing box, back to L/R into a modified CRL stereo generator. The station was the loudest thing in the market, but the s/n was absolutely horrific. Cume was pretty good, but they couldn't figure out why the TSL was so bad by comparison. One night I came in with a (new at the time) Orban 8200 which displaced the rack of gear to display status. Not surprisingly, listener feedback was very positive and TSL tripled in one book. You could actually listen to the station without becoming all stressed-out.

 

[Rob Piotrowski]

They're in the process of making a few updates so I'm curious to see if there will be any noticeable difference.

I wouldn't count on it. If management set the processing for a specific music mixx then that's the way it will stay.

Behind the keyed smoked glass door, were two modified UREI crossovers, six UREI LA3A compressors, feeding six UREI LA4 compressors (three of each per channel) to a mixing box, back to L/R into a modified CRL stereo generator. The station was the loudest thing in the market, but the s/n was absolutely horrific.

Ohhhh.....those LA-3as and 4s were AWESOME but noisy as hell. Still loved them!

A station I worked at in the '80s playing oldies had a 8100 hot-rodded by a friend of the CE who was a student at a nearby college. He made it loud - but clean - and the station had great AQH and TSL numbers.

 

[fordranger797]

I wouldn't count on it. If management set the processing for a specific music mixx then that's the way it will stay.

Okay, that would make sense. I was actually under the impression that most local clusters would have similar processing on each station regardless of the station format. I am definitely NOT an engineer

 

[fordranger797]

Traditionally, KRTH has used either heavily modified gear or devices built at the station.

At one point, they asked for actual dubs of the master tapes of the songs they played.

The audio chain was in a rack with a smoked glass door and it was locked.

Today's processors have such versatile settings ranges that much of that is not necessary. And engineers have to deal with multiple stations, so have less time. Management, less than ever, sees engineering as a competitive tool to be used to get ahead of the competition.

Do you know how KRTH performed in the LA market when they went for that sound?

 

[davideduardo]

Do you know how KRTH performed in the LA market when they went for that sound?

They did that from the 70's well into the 90's. They sounded better than anything in the market because they built processing appropriate for the format.

Before off the shelf processors were so versatile and capable, many of us built our own audio chains. Either we combined recording studio modules such as the previously mentioned LA-3A0s with crossovers (I had those at WQII) and custom peak limiters or we found developers who were moving into multiband. I had an early Greg Ogonoski tri-band processor and fed it to a peak limiter developed by John Pate of Sine Systems. The station sounded great, but jumped off the dial. Of course, they were fed into the 10 kw Harris PDM transmitter, serial No. 00001.

 

[fordranger797]

Before off the shelf processors were so versatile and capable, many of us built our own audio chains. Either we combined recording studio modules such as the previously mentioned LA-3A0s with crossovers (I had those at WQII) and custom peak limiters or we found developers who were moving into multiband. I had an early Greg Ogonoski tri-band processor and fed it to a peak limiter developed by John Pate of Sine Systems. The station sounded great, but jumped off the dial. Of course, they were fed into the 10 kw Harris PDM transmitter, serial No. 00001.

Now that shelf processors are used, is it possible to achieve the classic sound that you speak of, or is that sound unique to the equipment of the time?

I wish I would have been around when you guys were employing some of that old equipment. It sounds like it was really interesting how it came together.

 

[Rob Piotrowski]

Now that shelf processors are used, is it possible to achieve the classic sound that you speak of, or is that sound unique to the equipment of the time? .

I think you mean "off the shelf" - and yes, they can emulate - but not duplicate - the sound of 30-year-old hardware. That's all possible thanks to digital signal processing - DSP for short.

If you want to play with audio processing on your own, download Stereo Tool or Breakaway Audio Enhancer. Both come in free demo versions that are (mostly) fully functional. You might be able to create that "sound" on your own...

 

[fordranger797]

If you want to play with audio processing on your own, download Stereo Tool or Breakaway Audio Enhancer. Both come in free demo versions that are (mostly) fully functional. You might be able to create that "sound" on your own...

I'll certainly check that out. Those programs actually sound pretty familiar. I heard of a gentleman in New Jersey who ran a part 15 in with the aid of a computer program to process the audio, and I believe he later upgraded to an Orban Amigo processor (not sure if that model was rated for commercial use or not). Either way, the quality was pretty impressive.