R
radiomike
Guest
Add another IBOC signal..
Now, can BEE and HOT sync their digital and analog audio?
Now, can BEE and HOT sync their digital and analog audio?
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Wouldnt that require a delay on the analog side to make up for the buffer? Not sure if the operators would go for that. Then again, they program for ten minutes these days then walk around the building the rest of their shift anyway.
> Add another IBOC signal..
>
> Now, can BEE and HOT sync their digital and analog audio?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Let's all get together and have a hoe-down</P>
> Add another IBOC signal..
>
> Now, can BEE and HOT sync their digital and analog audio?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Let's all get together and have a hoe-down</P>
R
radiomike
Guest
The IBOC standard is to match levels and audio in Sync. It is done at the exciter. With many of the digital links and processors out there, many people are not monitoring off air anyhow. For the listener with IBOC radios, it makes a huge difference.
> Wouldnt that require a delay on the analog side to make up
> for the buffer? Not sure if the operators would go for that.
> Then again, they program for ten minutes these days then
> walk around the building the rest of their shift anyway.
>
> > Add another IBOC signal..
> >
> > Now, can BEE and HOT sync their digital and analog audio?
> >
>
> Wouldnt that require a delay on the analog side to make up
> for the buffer? Not sure if the operators would go for that.
> Then again, they program for ten minutes these days then
> walk around the building the rest of their shift anyway.
>
> > Add another IBOC signal..
> >
> > Now, can BEE and HOT sync their digital and analog audio?
> >
>
104.7 now Awful-Sounding Audio
I'll confess that I didn't listen to WBBS before the switch to IBOC, but after sampling the audio quality the other day post-IBOC, all I can see is yuck! WBBS used to be one of the most exciting stations to listen to when it was WKFM 104.7. There was something about its audio quality that made it seem louder with more brilliance and stereo separation than other stations on the dial. I don't know how this is technically done, but the station now sounds very mid-range heavy and thin with little stereo separation.
I'll confess that I didn't listen to WBBS before the switch to IBOC, but after sampling the audio quality the other day post-IBOC, all I can see is yuck! WBBS used to be one of the most exciting stations to listen to when it was WKFM 104.7. There was something about its audio quality that made it seem louder with more brilliance and stereo separation than other stations on the dial. I don't know how this is technically done, but the station now sounds very mid-range heavy and thin with little stereo separation.
Re: 104.7 now Awful-Sounding Audio
> I'll confess that I didn't listen to WBBS before the switch
> to IBOC, but after sampling the audio quality the other day
> post-IBOC, all I can see is yuck! WBBS used to be one of
> the most exciting stations to listen to when it was WKFM
> 104.7. There was something about its audio quality that
> made it seem louder with more brilliance and stereo
> separation than other stations on the dial. I don't know
> how this is technically done, but the station now sounds
> very mid-range heavy and thin with little stereo separation.
>
Trust me, it sounds 10 times better than it did 2 weeks ago- It was a mushy, overcompressed, bassy disaster. You'd never know they had multi-band processing, as it was all crunched. Now they are quite listenable and sound good on a variety of radios.
Remember than much of the music produced in Nashville is ALL mid-range. Process the station to make a George Strait song sound good and Shania & Faith will be muddy mess
Kix 104.7 used an 8100 and Texar Prisms... Got to love analog boxes, heh? There's still nothing better!
> I'll confess that I didn't listen to WBBS before the switch
> to IBOC, but after sampling the audio quality the other day
> post-IBOC, all I can see is yuck! WBBS used to be one of
> the most exciting stations to listen to when it was WKFM
> 104.7. There was something about its audio quality that
> made it seem louder with more brilliance and stereo
> separation than other stations on the dial. I don't know
> how this is technically done, but the station now sounds
> very mid-range heavy and thin with little stereo separation.
>
Trust me, it sounds 10 times better than it did 2 weeks ago- It was a mushy, overcompressed, bassy disaster. You'd never know they had multi-band processing, as it was all crunched. Now they are quite listenable and sound good on a variety of radios.
Remember than much of the music produced in Nashville is ALL mid-range. Process the station to make a George Strait song sound good and Shania & Faith will be muddy mess
Kix 104.7 used an 8100 and Texar Prisms... Got to love analog boxes, heh? There's still nothing better!
B
BobbyG
Guest
Re: 104.7 now Awful-Sounding Audio
> > I'll confess that I didn't listen to WBBS before the
> switch
> > to IBOC, but after sampling the audio quality the other
> day
> > post-IBOC, all I can see is yuck! WBBS used to be one of
> > the most exciting stations to listen to when it was WKFM
> > 104.7. There was something about its audio quality that
> > made it seem louder with more brilliance and stereo
> > separation than other stations on the dial. I don't know
> > how this is technically done, but the station now sounds
> > very mid-range heavy and thin with little stereo
> separation.
> >
>
> Trust me, it sounds 10 times better than it did 2 weeks ago-
> It was a mushy, overcompressed, bassy disaster. You'd never
> know they had multi-band processing, as it was all crunched.
> Now they are quite listenable and sound good on a variety of
> radios.
Before you can make any judgements on whether or not it sounds good, remember that everyone's using highly compressed mp3's. I don't care how much you process that, it's still going to sound like mp3's. Bring back CD's or at least rip stuff to a lossless format.
> > I'll confess that I didn't listen to WBBS before the
> switch
> > to IBOC, but after sampling the audio quality the other
> day
> > post-IBOC, all I can see is yuck! WBBS used to be one of
> > the most exciting stations to listen to when it was WKFM
> > 104.7. There was something about its audio quality that
> > made it seem louder with more brilliance and stereo
> > separation than other stations on the dial. I don't know
> > how this is technically done, but the station now sounds
> > very mid-range heavy and thin with little stereo
> separation.
> >
>
> Trust me, it sounds 10 times better than it did 2 weeks ago-
> It was a mushy, overcompressed, bassy disaster. You'd never
> know they had multi-band processing, as it was all crunched.
> Now they are quite listenable and sound good on a variety of
> radios.
Before you can make any judgements on whether or not it sounds good, remember that everyone's using highly compressed mp3's. I don't care how much you process that, it's still going to sound like mp3's. Bring back CD's or at least rip stuff to a lossless format.
MP3s?
> Before you can make any judgements on whether or not it
> sounds good, remember that everyone's using highly
> compressed mp3's.
Is that true? I can't imagine any radio station using MP3s for music - even at a high sampling rate. I know that several automation systems use MP2s, which use a digital compression scheme that allows full range audio beyond what an FM station can transmit. I also know that some agencies send commercials in MP3Pro, which has a high enough sampling rate to allow decent frequency response - although not as good as MP2.
If anybody out there is using MP3 for music, it's no wonder a large number of stations in Syracuse sound like crap. In this day and age, with hard drive space at less than $1 per gigabyte, there's no excuse for storing music in a poor-quality format.
> Before you can make any judgements on whether or not it
> sounds good, remember that everyone's using highly
> compressed mp3's.
Is that true? I can't imagine any radio station using MP3s for music - even at a high sampling rate. I know that several automation systems use MP2s, which use a digital compression scheme that allows full range audio beyond what an FM station can transmit. I also know that some agencies send commercials in MP3Pro, which has a high enough sampling rate to allow decent frequency response - although not as good as MP2.
If anybody out there is using MP3 for music, it's no wonder a large number of stations in Syracuse sound like crap. In this day and age, with hard drive space at less than $1 per gigabyte, there's no excuse for storing music in a poor-quality format.
B
BobbyG
Guest
Re: MP3s?
> Is that true? I can't imagine any radio station using MP3s
> for music - even at a high sampling rate. I know that
> several automation systems use MP2s, which use a digital
> compression scheme that allows full range audio beyond what
> an FM station can transmit. I also know that some agencies
> send commercials in MP3Pro, which has a high enough sampling
> rate to allow decent frequency response - although not as
> good as MP2.
>
> If anybody out there is using MP3 for music, it's no wonder
> a large number of stations in Syracuse sound like crap. In
> this day and age, with hard drive space at less than $1 per
> gigabyte, there's no excuse for storing music in a
> poor-quality format.
>
All right...mp3, mp2, whatever. It all sounds substandard to me. When I listen to CC's mp2's I hear the same compressed sound. I know it's supposed to be better, more full range audio, but it's not. Just listen to the warbled highs...
> Is that true? I can't imagine any radio station using MP3s
> for music - even at a high sampling rate. I know that
> several automation systems use MP2s, which use a digital
> compression scheme that allows full range audio beyond what
> an FM station can transmit. I also know that some agencies
> send commercials in MP3Pro, which has a high enough sampling
> rate to allow decent frequency response - although not as
> good as MP2.
>
> If anybody out there is using MP3 for music, it's no wonder
> a large number of stations in Syracuse sound like crap. In
> this day and age, with hard drive space at less than $1 per
> gigabyte, there's no excuse for storing music in a
> poor-quality format.
>
All right...mp3, mp2, whatever. It all sounds substandard to me. When I listen to CC's mp2's I hear the same compressed sound. I know it's supposed to be better, more full range audio, but it's not. Just listen to the warbled highs...
Re: MP3s?
> All right...mp3, mp2, whatever. It all sounds substandard
> to me. When I listen to CC's mp2's I hear the same
> compressed sound. I know it's supposed to be better, more
> full range audio, but it's not. Just listen to the warbled
> highs...
If you're listening off the air, the problem may not be the original files. As has been discussed here before, the processing for a lot of Syracuse stations is awful.
It's also possible that the files were poorly recorded. If the original CD rip isn't normalized, or compression is added before it's stored as an MP2, then you'll have crappy sound.
I'm not in Syracuse. In my market, audio on all the stations I'm involved with is quite good. The MP2 files themselves are generally stored without compression at the same peak level, which allows for plenty of headroom. I don't hear the type of artifacts or distorted highs that your talking about, even on the air. I suspect you'd have a hard time detecting a CD vs. an MP2 once it went through the audio chain.
> All right...mp3, mp2, whatever. It all sounds substandard
> to me. When I listen to CC's mp2's I hear the same
> compressed sound. I know it's supposed to be better, more
> full range audio, but it's not. Just listen to the warbled
> highs...
If you're listening off the air, the problem may not be the original files. As has been discussed here before, the processing for a lot of Syracuse stations is awful.
It's also possible that the files were poorly recorded. If the original CD rip isn't normalized, or compression is added before it's stored as an MP2, then you'll have crappy sound.
I'm not in Syracuse. In my market, audio on all the stations I'm involved with is quite good. The MP2 files themselves are generally stored without compression at the same peak level, which allows for plenty of headroom. I don't hear the type of artifacts or distorted highs that your talking about, even on the air. I suspect you'd have a hard time detecting a CD vs. an MP2 once it went through the audio chain.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.