• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Processing With A BW Transmitter And DBX Compressor/Limiter

SomeRadioGuy

SomeRadioGuy

This is what KSKO sounds like over the air on 89.5 FM. I recorded this sample with my ATS25 radio and everything turned open as wide as could be. We employ a DBX Compressor/Limiter and the internal BW transmitter processing set on "clean"

www.mediafire.com

KSKO 89.5 McGrath, Alaska Fri Apr 28, 2022 332pm AK Time

MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
www.mediafire.com
 
Radio Bob said:
I like the dense sound you have but haven't been able to get my DBX to sound like that just wondered if you had a pic of the knob settings. Thanks
Click to expand...
Doesn't the description 'dense' and 'clean'-setting sound contradicting? Nothing creating a dense sound would be considered clean.
 
SomeRadioGuy said:
This is what KSKO sounds like over the air on 89.5 FM. I recorded this sample with my ATS25 radio and everything turned open as wide as could be. We employ a DBX Compressor/Limiter and the internal BW transmitter processing set on "clean"
Click to expand...
Wow, that's way too smashed-sounding. Like something right out of the 70's.
 
Radio Bob said:
I like the dense sound you have but haven't been able to get my DBX to sound like that just wondered if you had a pic of the knob settings. Thanks
Click to expand...

I will get a picture of it and post it here.
Kelly A said:
Wow, that's way too smashed-sounding. Like something right out of the 70's.
Click to expand...

Hardly.. I've gotten a ton of compliments on it, for as set up i had nothing to do with..... people who are quite picky about audio have said it sounds good
 
Kelly A said:
Guess the question would be; as compared with what?
Click to expand...

I didnt ask for a comparison as to what else they like.. but these werent your radio geeks who lik that compressed balls to the wall sound. I happen to think it sounds good... and listeners dont complain
 
SomeRadioGuy said:
I didnt ask for a comparison as to what else they like.. but these werent your radio geeks who lik that compressed balls to the wall sound. I happen to think it sounds good... and listeners dont complain
Click to expand...
But that's the thing, listeners won't complain about overly processed audio. If they have a phone with their uncompressed music already there, it becomes their default. Same goes with streaming. They won't complain, because they don't know that you're intentionally altering the dynamics of the audio to make it sound louder. 'Radio just sounds inferior'. That's where they make the comparison in developing listening habits; their music just sounds better via their phone.
How badass and dense your processing sounds is a sure fire way to unknowingly drive your audience to something else. I don't understand why some radio people can't comprehend that listeners have many more options than just other radio stations.
 
Last edited:
Looking at your DBX processor settings, fast attack and fast recovery. Those settings will surely cause listener fatigue.
 
frankberry said:
Looking at your DBX processor settings, fast attack and fast recovery. Those settings will surely cause listener fatigue.
Click to expand...
That sounds like it's just a small step away from square waves.

In a non-competitive market, all that is needed is a degree of level control and protection from over-modulation. That will also make the community talk shows sound better, with less pumping on the voices and less enhancement of the noise level from excessive AGC.
 
Years ago I did a test study in which I ask people, not radio people, to listen to different audio clips. Some clips had high dynamics while others were highly compressed. Almost to a man the people all picked the compressed clips and said the compressed sounded more professional. Just sayin
 
Radio Bob said:
Years ago I did a test study in which I ask people, not radio people, to listen to different audio clips. Some clips had high dynamics while others were highly compressed. Almost to a man the people all picked the compressed clips and said the compressed sounded more professional. Just sayin
Click to expand...
In such a test, there are lots of variables. The most important, and the subject of many decades of complaints about "loud" TV commercials, is apparent loudness. In a test, for the difference in quality... what some call "fidelity"... demands that the sample have the same apparent loudness. Otherwise, the opinions of most people will be that the louder audio sounds "better" when, in fact, it is just apparently louder.

To accurately do that kind of test, one has to play the samples so that the apparent loudness was identical, which might mean that the less compressed audio might have to "peak" at 3 db, 6db, even 9db higher than the compressed material. Otherwise, the "energy" of the less processed audio sounds weak and will cause people to choose the more dense audio.

The critical element is how a person reacts to a half hour, an hour, several hours to highly compressed audio, particularly if there is considerable clipping... such as Eric Small's Modulation Sciences peak clipper used widely in the later 70's.
 
DavidEduardo said:
In such a test, there are lots of variables. The most important, and the subject of many decades of complaints about "loud" TV commercials, is apparent loudness. In a test, for the difference in quality... what some call "fidelity"... demands that the sample have the same apparent loudness. Otherwise, the opinions of most people will be that the louder audio sounds "better" when, in fact, it is just apparently louder.

To accurately do that kind of test, one has to play the samples so that the apparent loudness was identical, which might mean that the less compressed audio might have to "peak" at 3 db, 6db, even 9db higher than the compressed material. Otherwise, the "energy" of the less processed audio sounds weak and will cause people to choose the more dense audio.

The critical element is how a person reacts to a half hour, an hour, several hours to highly compressed audio, particularly if there is considerable clipping... such as Eric Small's Modulation Sciences peak clipper used widely in the later 70's.
Click to expand...
David hit the nail on the head. Short clips may sound "more professional" when they are compressed. Listening to highly compressed audio over long periods of time will absolutely lead to listener fatigue.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom