Do you like your music audio-processed?

[nd2023]

I don't really like the sound of unprocessed music on my iPod, so I actually run my MP3s through Sound Solution to keep the average "modulation" high and the volumes of different songs are similar. I mostly listen to CHR, dance, AC, and oldies.

 

[LA_Guy]

A True story...

I worked for WLKW-FM back in the early 1980's. They were formatted easy listening music, and OWNED Providence, RI with an almost 13 share (and 5.1 on their daytime AM).

We ran a pristine audio plant. Our on air tapes were first generation 7.5 IPS masters, dubbed 1:1 from the 15 IPS master tapes of each recording (backwards no less). Audio levels were set and and phase (via oscilloscope) were checked every time a tape was loaded. We were the first radio station in the USA to have ZERO transformers in our audio chain. We employed a custom hand rebuilt hand tuned Optimod 8000A for audio. Our console was an Autogram that had EVERY amplifier in it replaced with either custom built ones or UA2s from Straight Wire Audio. All levels on the board were pre-set. Our reel decks used custom preamps designed by Straight Wire Audio that had balanced inputs (no hum). We ran a completely rechipped and recapped composite STL with a hot rodded updated AFC (you people who know Mike Gideon know what I'm talking about) and had one of the first BE FX-30 exciters in the country (also hot rodded by us).

Why do I go into such detail? Simple. We had argueably the one of the cleanest, best sounding air chains in the entire world circa 1982.

However...every now and then I would get a call from a listener who claimed that we were 'fading out' in their car. A quick check of the Remote control showed the full 50 kW ERP coming out of our transmitter. I suspected that the problem was road noise covering up the audio (we ran essentially uncompressed-protective limiting only). Problem was, there was no decent AGC, compressor out there that sounded any good.

Until one day Aphex came out with their Compellor...

We put one in, and slipped in about 7 db of AGC and compression. The 'golden ears' at our station pronnounced that other then the signal sounding a bit 'louder' it still had the musical qualities that had our AQH listening measured in MANY HOURS per day! I got no calls complaining about any change in audio quality whatsoever....

.....except that the calls of the station 'fading out' simply disappeared.

My point is this: Audio processing used properly can be a powerful competitive weapon. Used improperly, you WILL shoot off your foot with it....

 

[elchupacabras]

Nick writes: I don't really like the sound of unprocessed music on my iPod, so I actually run my MP3s through Sound Solution to keep the average "modulation" high and the volumes of different songs are similar. I mostly listen to CHR, dance, AC, and oldies.

The Sound Solutions is not a great processor, but I agree with you, I can't stand unprocessed audio. Many engineers argue that the less processed, the better, due to listener fatigue. Frankly, I disagree. I love THICK processed audio, and my friends and family members who are not in the industry have taken blind tests and tell me the same. PM me and I will send you one of my settings for the SS Processor that makes it sound "hot!" Although there is, unfortunately, that factor of adding a little distortion as you augment the compression.

I use it with a Sonic Maximizer, Compellor, and on board EQ and FX, stereo expansion through my console to come up with a decent sound at home. An Omnia it ain't, but it beats having no compression. I have 70 thousand mp3's, mostly Latin and Jazz, but plenty of pop and rock.

How many other DJ's are out there that can't stand non-processed music? I would bet a bunch.

 

[Tom Wells]

I don't especially care for the sound of music straight out of a "stereo" at home.
Too often I "need" to turn it up or down according to the music or activity at hand.
If I want to hear something, I digitize it to 192k mp3, clean it up, and load it into the automation system.
Sometimes I apply compression using the dynamic processor in Nero to fatten it up some.
The computer runs Breakaway Broadcast Processor, and following that is a two-pass trip through an ART processor,
where each pass can give up to 15db compression. First pass hits peaks, second pass for "leveling".
Then into the AM pt 15 modulator (no transformers anywhere except in the side chain reverb).
Listening happens on any one of many hifi AM radios I've collected (and hot-rodded). No, I don't miss "stereo" at all.

I've apologized to Leif for using something after Breakaway, but we all have our preferences in sound, mine was formed listening to
WLS and WCFL in the days when they were the monsters of Chicago music radio.
The ART is good at making the sound "wet", but Breakaway is the real magic step, and while it may lack "full access" to all parameters,
I'm more than satisfied with the settings, choices and adjustments that are available.

With processing the music doesn't "fall off the dial", even at low listening levels and still sounds full.
I'm careful to keep everything set where it's louder, without making it sound like it's been "louded".

 

[gtomas]

There is a golden middle between protection processing and aggressive processing, where processing can (in my heavily subjective opinion) often enhance the listening experience, if the processor used complements your subjective preferences in sound. Whether this is because I have an acquired taste for processed audio or not, but to me music can often sound better when tastefully processed - it's sounds more alive, more engaging, with nice low-end heaviness and punch and more pronounced high-end transients. Basically, it provides an effect that I like.

For a radio station, it will additionally improve the broadcast by providing consistent level, consistent loudness and consistent spectral balance - it will "post-produce" your audio in an nice and appealing package that your listeners will always want to come back to


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[Sgeirk]

All depends on what I'm listening to, if I'm listening to anything recorded in the last 10 years, there's little, if anything that needs to be done to it. If anything, I'd like it UNDONE.

Otherwise, I'd say I like the sound of nicely processed audio. Key word: nice.

 

[wgliradio]

I've used Breakaway to slightly process some material I upload to my MP3 player... but most of what I listen to are aircheck files, so they're already processed

 

[The F Mister]

And I thought I was the only freak out there running music through my processor before saving it for playback
I think you can roughly divide processing in three categories
For gentle leveling
For broadcast
For freaks (like me) needing to hear the processing doing its business

Now I would like to run this thought by the rest. Doesn’t it has to do with what you grow up with? I mean, people that grew up with that big phat 80's sound still seek it now. And I grew up with the heavily compressed audio age, completely insensitive to coded audio (not that this is a good thing). Isn't it why new released are already hypercompressed leaving the mastering room because this is what the new generation expects? I don't know any better or audio is processed on radio, tv, cd, itunes and I'm no exception to the rest of my generation.

 

[radioengr]

.

 

[littlejohn]

I grew up on grand opera on a good 'HiFi' and later stereo system. DGG and LOndon and RCA Red Seal vinyl, A-R, H.H. Scott, and Garrard. Unfortunately, you don't have the 50 - 60dB S/N in an automobile environment that you have in your livingroom. You have to crunch it some to be heard at all over ambient. How much probably depends as much on what you're broadcasting as anything. When some large chested soprano is floating a pianissimo, it has to be heard, but it ought to be percieved as painissimo. Actually, today's psychoaccoustical processors do an excellent job of that. They also do an excellent job of munging up whatever you put intot hem, if that's what you're shooting for. As Goran says, there's a sweet spot. It's up to you to find it.

 

[elchupacabras]

I grew up on grand opera on a good 'HiFi' and later stereo system. DGG and LOndon and RCA Red Seal vinyl, A-R, H.H. Scott, and Garrard.

Ditto. I grew up with a 1939 Stewart-Warner console radio with an RCA input for a turntable. The push-pull audio out of the console was pure velvet. They don't make systems that sound that good anymore. I think part of the reason we "have to process" is that digital just sounds harsh, dull, and cold with out it. Analog on a tube amplifier with good source material is still superior to any digital recording. Have you ever compared the warmth of a good sounding Stanton cartridge on a turntable into a good tube amp to the same recording off of a CD? The CD may have fewer pops, but the warmth is a TRILLION times better. A few years ago a friend played an mp3 for me through his station and then played the same song that had been carted up (remember those things?), and frankly the CART sounded better. The mp3 didn't warble, but it didn't sound as real.

Also, has anyone noticed how little separation is recorded at the source these days? Compare one of today's recordings with the stereo separation of The Righteous Brothers "Unchained Melody," or anything from Esquivel. It's just not there, and is way over compressed at the source. Yeah, and I am compression nut, but little by little, I realize just how much diminished quality we tolerate these days, that would have never been acceptable years ago.

While I am on this rant, I am tired of getting commercial dubs from other stations and agencies sent to me at 128kbs in mp3. Either send me an AAC copy at that rate, or at least at 320. I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE. Fellow workers say there is none, but at home I won't settle for anything LESS than 192. I currently work out of Mexico, and the other day I heard a Bruce Springsteen track over a nationally syndicated show that I am sure was sampled at 128 and it sounded like CRAP with the thick processing. Folks, I think even our listeners can tell the difference. Don't they deserve better? Here's my vote for banning the mp3 as we know it for on air use.

 

[littlejohn]

In fact I have, and I don't agree. 'Better' is a relative term. 'Different' is applicable in some cases. However, I've seen A-B double blind tests using a Mac amplifier and a Carver amplifier with an Aural Exciter properly added, and you can't tell the difference. Even order harmonics may add some 'warmth', but they don't add accuracy. Lots of people like the distortion cos they're used to it. A good vinyl system allows you to hear the hiss which appears when the master tape begins running, before the music starts. Do you consider that hiss as 'fidelity'? It's there throughout the record, it doesn't go away when the content comes along.
A lot of folks like analog tape, and it has ita place in the recording studio as an effect - as does the compressor, limiter, eq, etc. The nice part of tape and to a degree tubes is that they tend to fail gracefuilly to steadily increasing noise and crud in the content, while the digital system tends, when the samples go to all 1s, to come totally ungled all at once. Producers in many cases have not yet learnt to take advantage of the extra 20 - 30dB of S/N, and run the level down such that even the transients (which usually don't make it through the tubes anyway) aren't clamped.
You will have a hard time selling me on 'better', but I'll gladly admit to 'different'. Do the digital correctly, and see what the source sounded like. Then, if that's not to yuor liking, mung it up to the degree which pleases.
Next week, we'll be discussing speaker cables.

 

[gtomas]

While I am on this rant, I am tired of getting commercial dubs from other stations and agencies sent to me at 128kbs in mp3. Either send me an AAC copy at that rate, or at least at 320. I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE. Fellow workers say there is none, but at home I won't settle for anything LESS than 192. I currently work out of Mexico, and the other day I heard a Bruce Springsteen track over a nationally syndicated show that I am sure was sampled at 128 and it sounded like CRAP with the thick processing. Folks, I think even our listeners can tell the difference. Don't they deserve better? Here's my vote for banning the mp3 as we know it for on air use.

Amen to that!


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[gtomas]

The nice part of tape and to a degree tubes is that they tend to fail gracefuilly to steadily increasing noise and crud in the content, while the digital system tends, when the samples go to all 1s, to come totally ungled all at once.

The great thing about tape is that it saturates, it has a compression/limiting effect. And you always pushed it a little bit hot, to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio... The compression effect it provides was/is very natural and smooth (unless you over-drive it). Dare I say it has an "analog" feel to it


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[The F Mister]

So recap, the "old" people like what actually are the drawbacks/limitations of older recordings/gear and find it better over coded audio? And the new generation doesn't care about the drawbacks of coded audio (if they are even aware of it) but find it better than the old stuff with strange rumble and scratches? Interesting.

 

[elchupacabras]

So recap, the "old" people like what actually are the drawbacks/limitations of older recordings/gear and find it better over coded audio? And the new generation doesn't care about the drawbacks of coded audio (if they are even aware of it) but find it better than the old stuff with strange rumble and scratches? Interesting

That's a pretty good take on things F Mister! I am pushing 40, and like both types of audio, but I would have to favor the warmness of analog, if I were given a preference. Sure you can't go back, but it is interesting to note the most expensive amps out there are TUBE amps! Check out the audiofile sites and you will see the trends. I'll take the warm resonance of a mono tube unit over the most sophisticated Dolby 7 channel surround sound amp any day! Current technology is great for recording, but I'll stick with the analog for reproduction (at least until it is time to change the tubes!)

 

[Tom Wells]

The nice part of tape and to a degree tubes is that they tend to fail gracefuilly to steadily increasing noise and crud in the content, while the digital system tends, when the samples go to all 1s, to come totally ungled all at once.

The great thing about tape is that it saturates, it has a compression/limiting effect. And you always pushed it a little bit hot, to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio... The compression effect it provides was/is very natural and smooth (unless you over-drive it). Dare I say it has an "analog" feel to it


Regards,
Goran Tomas

One of the best parts about the soft compression and limiting in tape recording is that the degrree of "headroom" was related to tape speed.
In the days before I bought and built a kit for a click/pop eliminator, I simply tested how full I could run the tape with audio, at which point
the clicks and pops were well beyond the levels of program material, and unless it were during a quiet passage in the music, the clicks were
buried within the desired audio, and almost unnoticeable.
I also appreciated the same effect on FM radio, where it was obvious that a scratchy record was being played, but the limiting effect
of maximum freq deviation gave the same result, no "room" for the scratches to be louder than the program material.
Scratchy records sounded better on FM than at home.
At 47, I find 128k mp3s the absoulute min that can be acceptable to me on some material, but won't bother dubbing any less than 192 now.

What really glares on my ears now is when I hear an AM radio with square-wave detection.
Instead of mixing a sine wave in to convert to the IF frequency, a square wave is used, with much noise and harmonic
content being added. It would have gotten an "F" from Ed Hershman at Valpo Tech, unless you could explain exactly WHY you needed to add so much noise.

 

[bossbill]

With inexpensive hard drives and broadband internet, there is no reason to use mp3 in professional applications. Coding should be avoided. Let the iPod heads use it to cram a kazillion songs in their pockets.

 

[gtomas]

So recap, the "old" people like what actually are the drawbacks/limitations of older recordings/gear and find it better over coded audio? And the new generation doesn't care about the drawbacks of coded audio (if they are even aware of it) but find it better than the old stuff with strange rumble and scratches? Interesting.

Both mediums have their pros and cons. The noise (hiss) is big problem with tape. The cassette is just awful and I never liked Dolby noise reductions. I was very glad to switch to MiniDisc when it came out and we got a digital recording medium (with coding!, but a high bitrate one) that was free of noise and full of sound.

But I'm talking about tape here. You know, the reel-to-reel tape that all those 80s music you listen was mastered on Depending on how wide it was and how fast it travelled across the heads, they were capable of excellent performance. Broadcasters specd 1/4" reel-to-reels because FM transmission has limited SNR anyway, but even those machines were something. The last "broadcast" reel-to-reel recorder that Tascam made was BR-20 and it's just pure 20 kg of marvellous (electronically controlled) mechanical engineering. Like I said, take any original quality late 80s or early 90s CD and enjoy the sound of analog tape!

I guess the coding also provides an effect - sort of a "flanging" effect, mostly on HF transients. I guess you might end up liking that. The truth is,if done right and at an appropriate place, coding can be transparent. But it sooo abused today and on such a large scale that it has mostly downgraded the quality of audio we have today. If you never hear the original, I guess you don't mind because you don't have the reference. But if you heard the original and the (badly) coded version, you just can't not to notice that it sounds worse.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[gtomas]

With inexpensive hard drives and broadband internet, there is no reason to use mp3 in professional applications. Coding should be avoided. Let the iPod heads use it to cram a kazillion songs in their pockets.

Amen again!

Personal/consumer audio is one thing... But professional/broadcast audio needs to stay as far away from coding as possible - ideally all the way to that FM transmitter and/or DAB/HD Radio/streaming encoder.


Regards,
Goran Tomas