A Final Plea to CBS-FM: Fix Your Audio!

[gordonlee]

Well, if he does, CBS-FM isn't very clean. Neither was Lite way back when. If by "clean" you mean "unprocessed" then yes, both stations fit that bill. I got it with Lite, as it was supposed to sound that way.

CBS-FM used to sound BIG when Mike was in charge of the audio. Now it just lays there, there's no "pop" or "jump off the dial" about it.

With today's processors, such as the 11, 9,8600 or the Air Aura, the firepower is there to be both loud and also clean. It takes a lot of listening and time, as well as a good set of ears, but it can be done.

I never got those that detested mic processing. Just like everything in audio, when used carefully, properly and with the minimal amount possible it can make the mic stand out of the mix, especially when talking up records. Back in his days at Lite, nobody was hitting the post. CBS-FM is different. With a properly processed mic, the levels are more consistent going in to the final processor(s), allowing the jock to mix his/her voice in with the music and have it be part OF the music. Not jumping way up in level or too low. A properly executed talk up should sound like it was almost recorded with the original song.

Off the soapbox now.

That's a great observation, and was the point I was trying to get across, that the jox are a part of the music. To this day, the best sounding station I've ever heard was Z-100 back in the mid 80s when they had the Texar Audio Prism. I never got a chance to do on-air at a station that used the Texar box, but I did for a time at a station using a competing product from CRL (which I believe was bought out by Orban). Anyway, would be fun to hear CBS-FM using the old Audio Prism - it would definitely make them stand out in the market (assuming they get the settings right).

 

[LA_Guy]

If WCBS-FM's audio sounds like crap, it's probably because their Program Director is deaf from too many years of wearing Koss Pro4 AAA headphones connected to 40 watt monitor amps!

What frustrates me is knowing that I could spend a night there and fix it - just like I have done to many. many other stations - yet knowing that this will simply never happen!

 

[WNTIRadio]

That's a great observation, and was the point I was trying to get across, that the jox are a part of the music. To this day, the best sounding station I've ever heard was Z-100 back in the mid 80s when they had the Texar Audio Prism. I never got a chance to do on-air at a station that used the Texar box, but I did for a time at a station using a competing product from CRL (which I believe was bought out by Orban). Anyway, would be fun to hear CBS-FM using the old Audio Prism - it would definitely make them stand out in the market (assuming they get the settings right).

You can do everything a Prism can and more with an Ariane Sequel. The Ariane is based on a lot of the principles that were from the Prism and then improved on with more modern technology and learning from the shortfalls of the Prism.

Last I knew CBS-FM has an Ariane in line with the rest of the CBS stations. Last I knew there was an 8500, don't know if it was upgraded to an 8600.

At any rate, it isn't the pre-processors, it's the final processor.

As for Z-100, it did stand out compared to everything else on the dial at that time. I'll bet if you put the Foti air chain up against the Foti air chain of now it wouldn't hold up too well. There was probably a lot more distortion on it than we are used to hearing now, but it was louder and less distorted than what everyone else was using then.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

To this day, the best sounding station I've ever heard was Z-100 back in the mid 80s when they had the Texar Audio Prism.

Back in the mid-80s the music still had some dynamics. Today it's all brickwall-limited right on the CD or source file. I'm not a broadcast engineer but I care about the sound of music and wonder if on-air processing has evolved to respond any differently to the way music is produced today. Do the processors still try to "compress" music when nearly every modern recording has already been mastered/limited to the point where the waveform looks like a square wave?

 

[stewie]

To this day, the best sounding station I've ever heard was Z-100 back in the mid 80s when they had the Texar Audio Prism.

Back in the mid-80s the music still had some dynamics. Today it's all brickwall-limited right on the CD or source file. I'm not a broadcast engineer but I care about the sound of music and wonder if on-air processing has evolved to respond any differently to the way music is produced today. Do the processors still try to "compress" music when nearly every modern recording has already been mastered/limited to the point where the waveform looks like a square wave?

Garbage in garbage out.

Curious what the compression (file size) algorithm is used for the files stored on disk (hard drive).

 

[xmusicmatt]

Garbage in garbage out.

Curious what the compression (file size) algorithm is used for the files stored on disk (hard drive).

If their not using PCM .wav (they should HD space is cheap) .. It's likely some form of MPEG 2 Compression (not to be confused with MPEG-2 Audio Layer II aka. mp3).

 

[Theater of My Mind]

If their not using PCM .wav (they should HD space is cheap) .. It's likely some form of MPEG 2 Compression (not to be confused with MPEG-2 Audio Layer II aka. mp3).

Well MPEG 2 is a lossy algorithm, parts of the music are removed to make the file size smaller. Some people can hear the loss in sound quality, some people can't, but the real problem happens when that lossy music is sent into another form of lossy encoding like HD Radio, or a codec for streaming or satellite. The cascading algorithms essentially compete with each other causing that horrible dull, swishy sound that is all too familiar. The problem is compounded by the use of heavy-handed audio processing (compression/EQ) before feeding it into the second form of encoding.

SiriusXM is probably the most glaring example of this. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that they store all their music in MPEG 2 format, then crush the hell out of it with maxed-out audio processing before encoding it with a second type of audio codec using a bitrate that is clearly way too low for music. It would sound terrible even if they were feeding lossless music into the final stage, but by starting with lossy MPEG 2 it's just beyond the pale.

 

[stewie]

If their not using PCM .wav (they should HD space is cheap) .. It's likely some form of MPEG 2 Compression (not to be confused with MPEG-2 Audio Layer II aka. mp3).

Well MPEG 2 is a lossy algorithm, parts of the music are removed to make the file size smaller. Some people can hear the loss in sound quality, some people can't, but the real problem happens when that lossy music is sent into another form of lossy encoding like HD Radio, or a codec for streaming or satellite. The cascading algorithms essentially compete with each other causing that horrible dull, swishy sound that is all too familiar. The problem is compounded by the use of heavy-handed audio processing (compression/EQ) before feeding it into the second form of encoding.

SiriusXM is probably the most glaring example of this. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that they store all their music in MPEG 2 format, then crush the hell out of it with maxed-out audio processing before encoding it with a second type of audio codec using a bitrate that is clearly way too low for music. It would sound terrible even if they were feeding lossless music into the final stage, but by starting with lossy MPEG 2 it's just beyond the pale.

And that's why I'm a fan of an analog air chain. Yeah, I know, they don't exist much anymore but there's a warth that's lost on today's radio stations. It's replaced with over driven, compressed and clipped audio.

 

[abonita]

To this day, the best sounding station I've ever heard was Z-100 back in the mid 80s when they had the Texar Audio Prism.

Back in the mid-80s the music still had some dynamics. Today it's all brickwall-limited right on the CD or source file. I'm not a broadcast engineer but I care about the sound of music and wonder if on-air processing has evolved to respond any differently to the way music is produced today. Do the processors still try to "compress" music when nearly every modern recording has already been mastered/limited to the point where the waveform looks like a square wave?

During my last couple of years at Z-100, my office was right next door to Mr. Foti's -- so I often got a preview of what was about to be. Also, I was the person who carted up the music, so I can state unequivocally that we used the cleanest source material available --usually 15 IPS tapes from the label on currents. The Police's "Synchronicity II" blew me away. And there was processing built-in between the source and the cart; our carts sounded better than their source.

You're absolutely right about the brickwall limiting. Trying to build a radio station from scratch, I made the grisly discovery that new compilations of '80's material were sonically radically different from their originals, and had to revert to earlier sources. I'm sad for the people to whom this is new, and think that's how it's supposed to sound.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

that's why I'm a fan of an analog air chain. Yeah, I know, they don't exist much anymore but there's a warth that's lost on today's radio stations. It's replaced with over driven, compressed and clipped audio.

Analog audio is quite capable of being overdriven, compressed and clipped, just like digital. Back 30 or 40 years ago, when everything was analog, there were some monstrously overdriven air chains out there, probably ordered by GM's or PD's whose processing philosophies could be summed up as "turn everything up to 11, we HAVE to be the loudest thing on the dial."

Neither analog nor digital have to sound that way. Careful planning and listening can yield an excellent result in either medium.