• 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

AM Radio is dying

Status
Not open for further replies.
[Regarding audio processing] If most of your audience is in noisy cars, busy offices and workplaces or even the kitchen at home, you can't have "real" dynamic rang or you will be overcome by ambient noise.
Yup.

As a teenager, I mostly listened to radio at home -- either in my room or in the family rec room. Often, I was listening using headphones. In that context, I definitely preferred FM stations that processed their audio as lightly as possible because I could hear the dynamic range and the pumping of tape hiss caused by heavy processing was especially annoying when listening on headphones.

But listening in a car, that lightly processed audio becomes a real pain the rear end because it means I'll be constantly adjusting the volume control.

So logic says that the "right amount" of audio processing is heavily influenced by the environment where your listeners are hearing your station. If you have a bunch of people listening at home, light processing would make sense. I think it is safe to say that today that doesn't describe any significant audience that is left for radio stations. Thus, heavy processing is now pretty common.

That said, it still needs to be done right. I once encountered a station that heavily compressed and clipped their audio. They actually managed to remove the beat from the songs they played. It sounded terrible, and there's really no excuse for it.
 
If most of your audience is in noisy cars, busy offices and workplaces or even the kitchen at home, you can't have "real" dynamic rang or you will be overcome by ambient noise.
We're talking about the dynamic range between the notes of a song, not the dynamic range between passages in a classical piece. Radio is making that dynamic range disappear and of course killing itself in the process.
 
I bought my 1st home audio receiver in 1989, mainly because it was the cheapest way to get a stereo amplifier. I have never programmed in the local radio stations on any of my 4 home audio receivers, mainly because I can hear the audio processing working and it's distracting.

About the only time I listen to radio at home is when I listen to AM talk radio KCMO 710 or KMBZ 980.

The audio processing isn't very distracting when I listen to AM or FM radio in my car since radio listening is secondary, I sometimes turn off the radio if the freeway traffic situation kinda suddenly gets bad.


Kirk Bayne
 
The audio processing isn't very distracting when I listen to AM or FM radio in my car since radio listening is secondary, I sometimes turn off the radio if the freeway traffic situation kinda suddenly gets bad.
That's very responsible of you Kirk. And, because your car radio only plays out of a single speaker in the dash, the amount of audio processing isn't really noticeable.
 
That's very responsible of you Kirk. And, because your car radio only plays out of a single speaker in the dash, the amount of audio processing isn't really noticeable.
I’m actually curious about this. Are most people really into audio and do they notice this kind of stuff when they are driving around?

I notice audio processing since I know what to look for, but as a general listener, I really couldn’t care less. Maybe car stereos have gotten to a point where people expect a certain threshold of quality though.

Spoken word content on an AM station that comes in well doesn’t bother me in the slightest. That’s why I mentioned in an earlier post that I see a difference between the major AM stations in town that have good coverage and produce ratings (and small AMs that probably should close up shop). There’s a huge gap from the audio you’re going to get on a crystal clear KIRO 710 and a station in the graveyard band that’s full of electrical interference.
 
I’m actually curious about this. Are most people really into audio and do they notice this kind of stuff when they are driving around?
Studies have shown that women are particularly sensitive to frequencies above 3.5kHz. Stations that do the traditional 'bowl' EQ curves to boost high and bottom end ranges, then apply a lot of compression or limiting, elevate and sustain the level of high-frequency material. Male technical folks and PD's setting up audio processing don't usually have the same perception of high frequencies, so they jack it up until they can hear the highs reliably. Add in the distortion and unnatural lack of dynamic range caused by excessive multiband processing, EQ, and clipping, and you have an old-school recipe for harming your TSL, especially with women.
In studies I've witnessed over the years, women usually can't articulate why their ears are offended by processing, other than comments like: 'The music doesn't sound like the songs I'm used to.' 'Or, 'I just can't listen to that for very long'. In blind listening studies, women wearing headphones were played the same song, one through a popular FM processor, and the other directly from the CD. In all cases, women reacted with the CD preference within the first thirty seconds after listening to the highly processed version.
 
Studies have shown that women are particularly sensitive to frequencies above 3.5kHz. Stations that do the traditional 'bowl' EQ curves to boost high and bottom end ranges, then apply a lot of compression or limiting, elevate and sustain the level of high-frequency material. Male technical folks and PD's setting up audio processing don't usually have the same perception of high frequencies, so they jack it up until they can hear the highs reliably. Add in the distortion and unnatural lack of dynamic range caused by excessive multiband processing, EQ, and clipping, and you have an old-school recipe for harming your TSL, especially with women.
In studies I've witnessed over the years, women usually can't articulate why their ears are offended by processing, other than comments like: 'The music doesn't sound like the songs I'm used to.' 'Or, 'I just can't listen to that for very long'. In blind listening studies, women wearing headphones were played the same song, one through a popular FM processor, and the other directly from the CD. In all cases, women reacted with the CD preference within the first thirty seconds after listening to the highly processed version.
That makes sense. There are certain cases where I’ve listeners to certain radio stations and felt fatigued while listening. This is probably exactly what you are describing. It would be hard to articulate if you don’t know what you’re talking about (or supposed to look for), but it’s definitely there.
 
That makes sense. There are certain cases where I’ve listeners to certain radio stations and felt fatigued while listening. This is probably exactly what you are describing. It would be hard to articulate if you don’t know what you’re talking about (or supposed to look for), but it’s definitely there.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that audio processing is evil or destructive. If used properly, it maintains comfortable levels between different music tempos, rhythms, and mixes. This is especially important to overcome road noise in-vehicle listening. Audio processing's primary job is to maintain legal modulation levels without the old broadband pumping, or sibilance from old-school AGC/limters.
The problem has been past loudness wars, where somehow programmers and engineers have completely disregarded things like fatiguing their listeners over being louder with a local competitor. After a while, radio people train their hearing to prefer excessive compression and clipping, not considering what it does to the station's TSL.
 
In studies I've witnessed over the years, women usually can't articulate why their ears are offended by processing, other than comments like: 'The music doesn't sound like the songs I'm used to.' 'Or, 'I just can't listen to that for very long'. In blind listening studies, women wearing headphones were played the same song, one through a popular FM processor, and the other directly from the CD. In all cases, women reacted with the CD preference within the first thirty seconds after listening to the highly processed version.

In the market in WY i work in, when i was there full time... we had a station that was very warm, toasty and grungy sounding. I knew several ladies Id spoken to personally who couldnt listen for long despite it being their 2nd favorite station.

Whjen I asked why, they couldnt exactly put their fingers on.. but it wasnt pleasant to them.
 
And, because your car radio only plays out of a single speaker in the dash, the amount of audio processing isn't really noticeable.

That was my 1985 Reliant - factory mono AM only + Radio Shack FM->AM converter (1987) = car mono (not much of a theft target).


Kirk Bayne
 
Actually, a low end analog tune AM/FM (stereo) radio was stolen out of my friends car, parked in his driveway, in 1986 (he left a window down), he lives just down the street from me (there was/is very little crime in this neighborhood).

I was also frequently at Bannister Mall (they had 3 record stores!).

Trying to get back on topic - I almost always listened to KCXL 1140 (urban format) when in the KC area (WHB 710 was running their super oldies weekend every weekend, I wasn't interested in hearing 1950s/early 60s music).


Kirk Bayne
 
Actually, a low end analog tune AM/FM (stereo) radio was stolen out of my friends car, parked in his driveway, in 1986 (he left a window down), he lives just down the street from me (there was/is very little crime in this neighborhood).

I was also frequently at Bannister Mall (they had 3 record stores!).

Trying to get back on topic - I almost always listened to KCXL 1140 (urban format) when in the KC area (WHB 710 was running their super oldies weekend every weekend, I wasn't interested in hearing 1950s/early 60s music).
I knew someone who had a radio stolen out of their VW bug. They came back to the car as the thief was getting ready to run, jumped on him and pinned him to the ground. The person whose car it was was that year’s state wrestling champion….

When was KCXL urban?
 
KCXL was a daytimer only at that time (my listening was from 1984-10 to 1987-09 when I put in the FM converter), and was trying to compete with KPRS.

(I got 286,000 miles on my Plymouth Reliant before getting a different car)

Regarding hearing radio audio processing - it's mainly the variable dynamic range reduction, noticeable to me on my home audio system tuners but not so much on my car stereo (unless I am listening while parked, which is rare).

I listen to AM radio almost daily (nearly always in my car), sometimes for a few hours total daily, because there is content on AM radio that I want to hear.


Kirk Bayne
 
When was KCXL urban?
I'm not at my main computer at the moment...from memory, it was the late 1980s. Chuck Moore owned it, if I remember correctly. It went off the air just before I moved to KC in 1990 due to financial difficulties. Studio and offices were on East 63rd Street west of Holmes, between the Brookside business district and The Landing. The sign stayed on the building for a couple of decades afterwards. The station was the air until 1993 or 94 when Pete Chartell bought it and ran it from the transmitter site in Liberty.

Aside from competing with a well established FM station and being a daytimer, KCXL was hampered by its transmitter site being north of the Missouri River while its target audience was south of the river.
 
Maybe the "engineer" in question here hasn't really thought this thru. He doesn't see the elephant in the room: Radio stations screw up audio intentionally.

A good unprocessed AM will always sound better than the typical FM that is playing the squashed audio loudness game, as most seem to be doing. I have no research to quote, but I'm sure that dynamics always surpasses bandwidth when you measure perceived audio quality. Well, I'll make an exception for my old Mazda that wouldn't even pass the letter S on the AM band.

Sure, you have to be close to the AM transmitting antenna, but this is gonna be the case if you are going to listen to AM.
You don't want an unprocessed AM. You want a consistent level and enough audio to crank that modulation to about +120 percent, while keeping the negative peaks from quite hitting 100. AM bandwidth is also limited by the transmitting antenna, further compromising the audio.

AM had a unique, rich mellow sound, but it is NOT audiophile quality the way FM can be. Just witness the difference between classical on AM vs classical on FM.
 
I've never cared about the lesser sound quality on AM. The interference bothered me some, but if it wasn't bad, it was the only way to listen to music I liked.

I had really slow Internet until I almost quit my phone company and faster Internet suddenly became cheaper, but another reason I didn't listen to music online until the standards station changed to oldies was that when I would listen to Paul Harvey at the library after missing some episodes, it sounded like he was under water.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom