• 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

Do radio stations really need a DJ?

Re: The Next Gen Automated Disc Jockey is coming!

Non-human disc jockeys are not entirely out of the question. Voice synthesizer technology is improving to the point where it is sometimes hard to distinguish between a speech generator and a real person. It is also quite possible to interface it with the automation to "read" the liner cards, which is all most live announcers do anyway.

What's really going to be cool is when we get CGI-generated news anchors a la Max Headroom on TV. Research is ongoing in that very field even as we speak.

I predict that actual live humans on the radio will be a rarity in a few more years (except for talk shows).


KL <P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://home.nc.rr.com/gttyson/lastradio.html">The Last Radio Station<a></P>
 
Re: The Next Gen Automated Disc Jockey is coming!

I can't agree with you more Keith. Thanks for bringing up Max Headroom too. As more and more Stations are going Jockless, this Virtual D.J. thing will happen, and sooner than we think!.

> Non-human disc jockeys are not entirely out of the question.
> Voice synthesizer technology is improving to the point
> where it is sometimes hard to distinguish between a speech
> generator and a real person. It is also quite possible to
> interface it with the automation to "read" the liner cards,
> which is all most live announcers do anyway.
>
> What's really going to be cool is when we get CGI-generated
> news anchors a la Max Headroom on TV. Research is ongoing
> in that very field even as we speak.
>
> I predict that actual live humans on the radio will be a
> rarity in a few more years (except for talk shows).
>
>
> KL
>
 
No way ... Joes

> Non-human disc jockeys are not entirely out of the question.
> Voice synthesizer technology is improving to the point
> where it is sometimes hard to distinguish between a speech
> generator and a real person. It is also quite possible to
> interface it with the automation to "read" the liner cards,
> which is all most live announcers do anyway.
>
> What's really going to be cool is when we get CGI-generated
> news anchors a la Max Headroom on TV. Research is ongoing
> in that very field even as we speak.
>
> I predict that actual live humans on the radio will be a
> rarity in a few more years (except for talk shows).

Three problems with that:

1. Do you have any idea how long it took to create
ten seconds of Max Headroom? (No, I don't.) When it
can be done in real time, it'll be feasible, if
not desirable.

2. What will be the believability of an animated
newsreader? Exactly zero. Now the celebrity "news"
programs could use a busty composite of Madonna
and Marilyn Monroe to read the gossip, for example,
but that's an entertainment show, not news.

3. How will they program them to suit the market?
The words may come in to the station by e-mail,
but what about the local dialect? Will they have
special models for ebonics and spanglish?

Or will we hear the computer-generated deejay of
the future say "No Way Joes"...????

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
[NO CARRIER]</P>
 
Re: No way ... Joes

>
> Three problems with that:
>
> 1. Do you have any idea how long it took to create
> ten seconds of Max Headroom? (No, I don't.) When it
> can be done in real time, it'll be feasible, if
> not desirable.

Actually Max Headroom was the actor Matt Frewer, heavily made up and put through a bunch of video tricks to create the effect. He may have been computer- modified, yes, but not computer-generated. That was a fiction created at the time to generate publicity, much the same way the Blair Witch Project movie did a few years later.
>
> 2. What will be the believability of an animated
> newsreader? Exactly zero. Now the celebrity "news"
> programs could use a busty composite of Madonna
> and Marilyn Monroe to read the gossip, for example,
> but that's an entertainment show, not news.

Most human TV news anchors, with a few notable exceptions, aren't much more than talking mannequins now. It's not that much of a leap to "synthetic" air personalities. Have you looked at any recent video games? The levels of realism are becoming quite lifelike.
>
> 3. How will they program them to suit the market?
> The words may come in to the station by e-mail,
> but what about the local dialect? Will they have
> special models for ebonics and spanglish?

Obviously there is more work to be done in the field, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it just yet. TV news shows have been using Ultimatte technology for years to create virtual sets. It's not that big of a leap.
>
> Or will we hear the computer-generated deejay of
> the future say "No Way Joes"...????

It can't be any worse than some of the howling mispronunciations I've heard from live humans.
>
> 73s from 954
> <P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://home.nc.rr.com/gttyson/lastradio.html">The Last Radio Station<a></P>
 
Re: No way ... Joes

Take a listen to the automated NOAA weather radio services..it's barely understandable. Copy can have mistakes even if a much better systems occurs. Not a plan.<P ID="signature">______________
"You're right to know supersedes your right to exist"..Gary Burbank</P>
 
Re: No way ... Joes

> Take a listen to the automated NOAA weather radio
> services..it's barely understandable. Copy can have mistakes
> even if a much better systems occurs. Not a plan.
>


If you're listening to NOAA weather radio for state-of-the-art voice synthesis, boy are you in the wrong place. NOAA's voiceboxes are downright primitive compared with what will soon be available.

KL<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://home.nc.rr.com/gttyson/lastradio.html">The Last Radio Station<a></P>
 
U Can Bet UR Azz It Won't B EZ...

> It can't be any worse than some of the howling
> mispronunciations I've heard from live humans.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter...

If they can't say it, they sure can't SPELL it. How are the automatons supposed to relate timely information to us when the people who are supposed to feed them text can't spell in the first place?

If you don't believe me, check the script from your local news person, or take a look at a teleprompter script.

And the problem is NOT getting better as younger people replace old pros in the newsroom.
 
Re: No way ... Joes

> Take a listen to the automated NOAA weather radio
> services..it's barely understandable. Copy can have mistakes
> even if a much better systems occurs. Not a plan.
<center>
And if you report something wrong
(like saying a dozen miners survived)
you can blame it on the programmers.
</center>
73s from 953.9999999999999999999999999999999<P ID="signature">______________
[NO CARRIER]</P>
 
how Max Headroom got his name

> Actually Max Headroom was the actor Matt Frewer, heavily
> made up and put through a bunch of video tricks to create
> the effect. He may have been computer- modified, yes, but
> not computer-generated. That was a fiction created at the
> time to generate publicity, much the same way the Blair
> Witch Project movie did a few years later.

Do you know how Max Headroom got his name?

It's terminology used in UK for the vertical
clearance, such as in tunnels, underpasses,
and parking garages. I read that way back then
when the show was on the air.

Why doesn't TVland ditch overexposed stuff like
Bewitched, the Bradys and Andy Griffith -- for
clever shows not seen in a long time, like Max
Headroom, The Pruitts of Southhampton, Ernie
Kovacs, Occasional Wife, The Good Guys, or
even The Double Life of Henry Phyffe?

BTW, If you ever get a chance to see Dusty's
Trail (with Bob Denver), it was a re-write
of Gilligan's Island in the olde west. I bought
an appropriately-priced DVD at Wal-Mart for $1.
It was hilarious but very predictable. Only
for Bob Denver fans.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
[NO CARRIER]</P>
 
Re: U Can Bet UR Azz It Won't B EZ...

> If they can't say it, they sure can't SPELL it. How are the
> automatons supposed to relate timely information to us when
> the people who are supposed to feed them text can't spell in
> the first place?
>
> If you don't believe me, check the script from your local
> news person, or take a look at a teleprompter script.
>
> And the problem is NOT getting better as younger people
> replace old pros in the newsroom.

Not as long as teaching kids to feel good about their
ignorance is more important than teaching them to spell
correctly.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
[NO CARRIER]</P>
 
No way

All true. Plus, machines cannot touch and connect with human beings.

Only the most cynical and skeptical would believe such folly. If radio personalities want to stay on the radio, they must become more than just liner card readers, introducing songs and giving weather forecasts. There are disc jockeys and there are radio personalities- which are you (he, the previous poster)?


>
> Three problems with that:
>
> 1. Do you have any idea how long it took to create
> ten seconds of Max Headroom? (No, I don't.) When it
> can be done in real time, it'll be feasible, if
> not desirable.
>
> 2. What will be the believability of an animated
> newsreader? Exactly zero. Now the celebrity "news"
> programs could use a busty composite of Madonna
> and Marilyn Monroe to read the gossip, for example,
> but that's an entertainment show, not news.
>
> 3. How will they program them to suit the market?
> The words may come in to the station by e-mail,
> but what about the local dialect? Will they have
> special models for ebonics and spanglish?
>
> Or will we hear the computer-generated deejay of
> the future say "No Way Joes"...????
>
> 73s from 954
>
 
Re: No way

> All true. Plus, machines cannot touch and connect with
> human beings.

I assume you mean figuratively and not literally.

Because I had an RS-232 port installed under my
pancreas 20 years ago and I'm going in next week
to replace my kneecap with an ethernet card.
(For those computer-assisted lightning-fast
kneejerk reactions.)

> Only the most cynical and skeptical would believe such
> folly. If radio personalities want to stay on the radio,
> they must become more than just liner card readers,

If you need card readers, contact my cousin, the
IBM #029 keypunch.

> introducing songs and giving weather forecasts. There are
> disc jockeys and there are radio personalities- which are
> you (he, the previous poster)?

"One never knows, do one?" ... Fats Waller

<marquee>[This has been a sneak preview of the
April Fool's Edition of Radio News.]</marquee>
<P ID="signature">______________
[NO CARRIER]</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom