-
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
KS95 sound quality? (FM/HD)
- Thread starter Wolfie770
- Start date
KS95 has sounded like crap for years now. I’m guessing a combination of bad source material, and a poorly configured audio processing. I’ve talked with many people across the Twin Cities, and they all agree KS95 is a contender for the worst sounding radio station quality wise in the Twin Cities.
The HD-1 sounds somewhat better, but however, IDK how much of that is due to just the HD Radio System or if they actually process the HD-1 somewhat differently. Either way, still sounds terrible on both.
HD is limited to 128kbps at max. (and some of that is being split with subchannels) Meaning that if the source material is already MP3 or lossy, it’s just getting re-encoded again. So I find it interesting that the HD1 sounds better to you. I personally think both sound like absolute garbage.
KS95 uses an Omnia.11 for processing last I heard. Sad they wasted that much money for the top of the line audio processor and don’t even seem to have it adjusted right. If it isn’t the processor, something in the air chain must be really screwed up.
It still sounds bad, just less bad than the FM, maybe it's simply less noise & less interference?
Could be.
The digital signal will always improve it to some capacity - this forum downplays the technology a bit I feel.
I don’t live in the area, but I did do some research and it looks like the company (Hubbard) just doesn’t invest much in the markets they have small clusters. They don’t receive much for operating with the 3 signals (one of which is an AM) so there is limited investment and upkeep.
Sad to see
KQ is much worse (processing)
KQ’s processing just hurts my ears. Someone was saying that Cumulus uses the same settings for processing throughout the company…. I doubt that though because there is no way they would let that s#!+ go on air in other markets…. Granted, it’s Cumulus, so you never know.
Cumulus sounds fine - rather good, in San Francisco. If you go out more inland they have more stations and some sound absolutely amazing so it certainly isn’t the same company wide!
Minnesota Public Radio does a great job with audio engineering. Super impressive.
Audacy seems to have the best audio processing in the commercial sector, and I find that true in most markets I travel to. Their AMs sound good too. Although, their HD subchannels are usually bad.
iHeart is consistently mid. Even their HDs are mid.
With the exception of some public radio and college stations, they’re all engineered for vehicle radios. Use your portable radio with headphones, and WOW the processing is so apparent.
Interestingly, online streaming has gotten much better.
Audacy seems to have the best audio processing in the commercial sector, and I find that true in most markets I travel to. Their AMs sound good too. Although, their HD subchannels are usually bad.
iHeart is consistently mid. Even their HDs are mid.
With the exception of some public radio and college stations, they’re all engineered for vehicle radios. Use your portable radio with headphones, and WOW the processing is so apparent.
Interestingly, online streaming has gotten much better.
I would agree that they have good processing. But I wonder about the actual engineering in the studio.... If you listen to it, the Stereo isn't balanced with the left channel being lower than the right on Jack... I think Wolf is similar.
- Status