It's happened, a format change at KPNW!

[boombox4]

They play a few tracks (a few of the alternative classic tracks) that sounded to me like the MP2 4:1 compressed music that the company I worked for sent out to radio stations in the 2000s by the metric ton. That tech seemed to be one of the standards until WAVs became more popular when the cost of storage came down later in that decade.

Some of the tracks are also mono -- mainly some of the alternative classic ones.

No opinion on their overall programming, as it has been covered thoroughly here by others.

 

[fordranger797]

Can't see what you wrote, other than you're on my 'ignored' list.

You should really see what he wrote. He’s right. I had the same experience with audio files that were saved as different file types. Everything in the music library was a WAV file, but I suspect that some items were ported over from other file types. With some of the audio quality in question at KPWN, one has to wonder if something similar happened.

 

[Kelly A]

You should really see what he wrote. He’s right. I had the same experience with audio files that were saved as different file types. Everything in the music library was a WAV file, but I suspect that some items were ported over from other file types. With some of the audio quality in question at KPWN, one has to wonder if something similar happened.

No, he's rarely right, that's why I ignore him. I just grew weary of his trying to tell people their business based on zero actual experience.

None of the KPNW audio issues have anything to do with file types. This isn't my first audio rodeo, and I know what I heard. They're doing very aggressive audio processing. By the sounds of it, I'm thinking of an Omnia 11 which don't get me wrong is a great digital audio processor. But like any processor, it can be misused. When looking at their HD1 via a PPM meter, the only time the needle dropped below -6 was when John Fisher was talking. Everything else musically had maybe 2.5dB of dynamic range at the most. That means a lot of multiband compression and clipping with fast attack and release times. I also looked at their Nielsen watermark/encoding with a friend's Telos TVC15. The encoding would drop in and out during music, and completely during voice, only to pop back on randomly. Not sure what's going on there, but I suspect it's because there's so much clipping going on, it's freaking out their Nielsen encoder.
My guess is they have a conventional-commercially based PD who thinks that being louder than the non-comm competition is important. All he's doing is shooting himself in the foot.

 

[bobdavcav]

Kelly, I'm curious if you're listening on a radio that has an audio meter or something? I consider myself to have a pretty good ear, but there's no way I would be able to tell you that there are problems around 60 Hz, or that the frequencies around 6 KHZ are boosted. Additionally, how do you know that the encoding on KPNW is inconsistent? There are definitely issues I've heard over the years, but not sure how you can describe them in such detail. I remember several years ago that the processing on both CHRs in the market sounded horrible. On 92.5, the signal was way overmodulated and there was some low end distortion, while 106.1 sounded like it had the extreme high end cranked up way too loud. Now, I think 106.1 could use an ever so slight amount of reverb as it sounds like it's broadcasting from the most soundproof room in the world.

 

[Kelly A]

Kelly, I'm curious if you're listening on a radio that has an audio meter or something?

I was listening/monitoring the received audio via a Denon tuner with no EQ other than the normal 75 microsecond deemphasis feeding an analog distribution amplifier, which also has a Ward Beck PPM meter displaying the audio level and dynamic range plus a White Instruments audio spectrum analyzer. To compare the analog and HD1, I swapped out the Denon tuner with a Sangean HD tuner. Since chances are they're using a single audio processor for both analog and digital, it makes sense that I had similar dynamic range (or lack thereof) measurements on both analog and digital. The big difference was the aggressive processing was tearing up the higher frequencies on the HD1, because HD goes well past the 13kHz pilot filters found on analog FM stereo.

I consider myself to have a pretty good ear, but there's no way I would be able to tell you that there are problems around 60 Hz, or that the frequencies around 6 KHZ are boosted.

The White Instruments audio spectrum analyzer visually showed what my ears were hearing. It was easy to see where they had equalization bands boosted.

Additionally, how do you know that the encoding on KPNW is inconsistent?

An engineer friend of mine loaned me his Telos TVC15 watermark analyzer. Before returning it, I put in on my test setup and looked at everyone's Nielsen encoding. It's a very cool device.

There are definitely issues I've heard over the years, but not sure how you can describe them in such detail.

Probably because I know what to look for, and know what I'm hearing because I've set up a lot of audio processing in my day.

 

[boombox4]

For the record, I know what 4:1 compression sounds like. I dubbed thousands of those files for hundreds of format libraries, over the 10+ years the company was sending out 4:1 MP2s for the over 1200 stations that were clients of the company I worked for.

4:1 compression removes some musical information from the stereo spectrum. You usually hear it only on headphones -- the lost or reduced cymbal hit, the missing percussion in the background, the sounds that file compression reduces to decrease the file size.

Then you hear the next song in full stereo, in high resolution, with all the instrumentation clearly audible, just like the CD. Which is what I heard on KPNW -- a few tracks here or there were clearly missing information, sounding like a 4:1 MP2. The rest of the tracks, audio processing notwithstanding, sounded just like the CD.

Same audio processing. Different resolution in the sound files.

If what I heard was the audio processing, it would have been the same on every single track. It wasn't. Some of the tracks sound like 4:1.

I only heard it on three or four tracks over a period of two days listening (a couple hours at a time) -- all with headphones, so if KPNW is using older, compressed files on some of their alt library tracks, it's not many of them. I also heard full mono tracks, when there are stereo versions available of those songs online. The point being that as KPNW's library is varied, they may have some older sound files included, in older formats. I'm guessing if that's the case, those files are probably being replaced (or removed) as the station continues in this format.

 

[boombox4]

I had a chance earlier today to listen to KPNW after over a month of not listening to them. I like the station, but the music isn't my preference. I was listening a lot in September and the first half of October. Then went back to my preferred music on YT...

After listening for an hour or more to KPNW on headphones (which is what I usually use for radio listening, while reading, or whatever), on two different FM radios, I think KellyA is absolutely correct: the processing is very compressed, and it's audio compression. It's like those CDs in the 2000s where it was like a competition of who can over process the music the most, who can flatline it the most. Well, not that bad, but close?

It's changed since I was listening in September and October. Everything sounds squished somewhat -- everything. Spots, tracks, all of it. And switching to other FM stations I noticed it was more boosted than the other music stations I switched to (KQMV, KBKS, KISW).

Whether that drives away listeners I have no clue. That conclusion is far beyond my pay grade.

I still think they used a variety of music sources earlier on, after they flipped, but what we're hearing now sounds like putting a track through some audio compressor or processing box with something turned way up. Like I said, whether the average listener pays attention, that's for others to determine.