FM

[cc333]

You think?????

Ha, yes! As I said, I'm not an expert. I don't have an ego, and don't mind being told I'm completely wrong. I'm hear to learn.

As I've said, it depends on the format. Classical & jazz are very concerned about audio quality. They're aiming at a different audience and a different listening environment. The environment dictates the experience.

I actually agree. However – and I should've been clearer on this – the emphasis was on the commercial broadcasters (I think @michael hagerty said as much when he posted this thread). At least as far as I know, most Classical and Jazz stations are noncommercial, so they're going by a different set of rules, and, generally, they seem to have a bit more freedom (to an extent), being that they're more listener-supported than ad-supported (although they still matter of course, they don't seem as beholden to ratings).

"The technology of the time" isn't FM. We all know that. I've already explained why.

Somehow, I missed (or don't remember) your explanation, so my apologies if I'm coming across dumbly here.

"The technology of the time" was probably AM (FM didn't start surpassing AM in the majority of places until the mid-late 70s, if I'm not mistaken), so it's a bit of an apples-oranges comparison, I'll admit.

But AM tended to sound better back then, didn't it? (and not only because of the vastly lower artificial noise floor). So my statement isn't entirely unfounded, I don't think. Imprecise, perhaps.

c

 

[cc333]

I understand audio. It's part of my job. I have already explained the limitations of FM. It's hundred-year old technology that really hasn't been modernized in 40 years. There really isn't a lot one can do about physics.

It's partly why most radio companies are seeking to transition their audience to streaming.

Right.

But as part of their effort to transition audience to streaming, they seem to be deliberately reducing the quality of their FM signals?

I think the basic point is that the quality of the sound can be better than it is.

c

 

[TheBigA]

they seem to be deliberately reducing the quality of their FM signals?

No. The FM signal is likely unchanged from where it was. But you have other options and it now sounds different to you.

What I find is perception varies a lot, and so does the reality.

I think the basic point is that the quality of the sound can be better than it is.

Maybe. Once again it depends on the station, and the station depends on where they listen.

I rent cars a lot. At least once a month. I get to listen to a lot of radio and a lot of different car radios. I can say definitively that the quality of OEM car radios has gone down a lot in the last ten years, and it varies based on manufacturers. Not a lot radio companies can do about that.

 

[TheBigA]

At least as far as I know, most Classical and Jazz stations are noncommercial, so they're going by a different set of rules, and, generally, they seem to have a bit more freedom (to an extent), being that they're more listener-supported than ad-supported (although they still matter of course, they don't seem as beholden to ratings).

Stations that are beholden to ratings are also beholden to the PPM system. The PPM system is based on the device being able to hear the encoding. If the device can't hear the encoding, then the station doesn't get credit. So we have this whole extra discussion about Voltare. That also affects audio. So stations have had to cut back on that. But the issue remains that if the device can't hear the encoding, for whatever reason (including competing environmental noise) then the station doesn't get credit. None of this would be an issue if the station wasn't (as you say) beholden to ratings.

But AM tended to sound better back then, didn't it? (and not only because of the vastly lower artificial noise floor). So my statement isn't entirely unfounded, I don't think. Imprecise, perhaps.

It depends on what you mean by "back then." The FCC has made changes that affected audio quality of AM. Radios are no longer of the quality they were "back then." Those things affect how audio sounds.

But as I said, FM is not the "technology of the times."

 

[davideduardo]

I've seen lots of listener polls, and any listener complaints about audio quality are way down on the list. It obviously bothers you. But that view doesn't appear to be common. The top 3 are the music, the talent, and the commercials.

I feel that the people who complain about quality have already found other audio sources and are not actively involved in listening.

Similarly, the subject of two-times-an-hour long stopsets may involve people who just don't want to put up with that practice any more and have left radio. So when stations research current listeners, they don't take into account why previous users are just gone for good. There are reasons why AQH listening is about 75% less than it was two decades ago.

 

[TheBigA]

So when stations research current listeners, they don't take into account why previous users are just gone for good.

Because as I often say we program to the people who listen.

 

[davideduardo]

Because as I often say we program to the people who listen.

Which, in an era of declining TSL, is a mistake. There is much to be learned by discovering former listeners and analyzing their feelings. Unfortunately, this requires one-on-one live interviews to be effective; a time consuming and expensive project.

 

[TheBigA]

There is much to be learned by discovering former listeners and analyzing their feelings.

Some of it shows up in the Infinite Dial studies, but often their comments include a lot of the same negative stereotypes we see here on this board every day about the music, talent, and commercial load.

 

[davideduardo]

Some of it shows up in the Infinite Dial studies, but often their comments include a lot of the same negative stereotypes we see here on this board every day about the music, talent, and commercial load.

But "Infinite Dial" is very generic and does not reveal cuauses for individual station's losses.

 

[TheBigA]

But "Infinite Dial" is very generic and does not reveal cuauses for individual station's losses.

Correct, it seems generic because it's national, not local. But that gets back to the expense of doing that kind of research for specific stations rather than "radio" as a whole.

 

[ILOVERADIO]

I actually have.

The stream isn't too great either, but it's infinitely more listenable than the on air signal, likely due to the absence of a cranked up voltaire, among other things.

c

I find it interesting that streaming AM and FM stations to my ear sound similar. Both are static free and enjoyable to listen to.
I grew up in the 60s on static and loved to hear long distance clear channels come in and out. But as a 72 year old, I really enjoy
static free internet and satellite radio.

 

[michael hagerty]

I find it interesting that streaming AM and FM stations to my ear sound similar.

That’s because the audio sent to the internet is pre-processing and pre-air. You’re not actually listening to AM or FM when you listen to a stream of either.

 

[cc333]

That’s because the audio sent to the internet is pre-processing and pre-air. You’re not actually listening to AM or FM when you listen to a stream of either.

It's interesting that this came up.

When experimenting with my small stream, I actually use an old Realistic TM-152 tuned to my station's frequency as the source, because I thought it was more interesting.

There is another station in Michigan that does this. I can't remember the calls (WIOI?), but it is one of the few stations still broadcasting in AM Stereo, and it is proud of it. So proud in fact, it used a Carver TX-11a as the source for its stream, so everyone could hear how superb their AM signal sounds in stereo.

c

 

[davideduardo]

That’s because the signals sent to the internet are pre-processing and pre-air. You’re not actually listening to AM or FM when you listen to a stream of either.

There is processing on most streaming audio, but it is "different" from over the air processing. First, OTA processing has one of its principal purposes to avoid overmodulation. Second, OTA processing is designed to sustain loudness to overcome background noise. Third, it is intended to make the volume consistent, without loud and soft elements.

Streams are often set to do AGC action, but no peak limiting and no clipping. And when compared with FM, they don't follow the FM pre-emphasis curves. But AGC is necessary and usually employed, as is some compression to keep the levels consistent.

The Optimod folks say this:

"An Orban Optimod for streaming refers to specialized audio processing hardware or software (like the Optimod-PCn series) that gives online radio, podcasts, and other audio streams a professional, loud, consistent, and branded sound, managing loudness, spectral balance, and peak levels to meet listener expectations and technical standards, preventing distortion and ensuring smooth transitions between different content sources. It acts as a high-quality pre-processor, much like traditional broadcast Optimods, but tailored for digital platforms, making streams "pop" and sound great across various devices."

And the Foti team says this:

Meet Forza, the latest family of Omnia processors for FM, HD, DAB, and streaming audio. ​

Omnia Forza breathes new life into the traditional five-band processor design, featuring all-new AGCs and multiband limiters. As a software processor, Forza is delivered via a Docker container that can be hosted on-premises on a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) server or cloud-hosted.

The use of expertly crafted launch point presets and an intuitive yet powerful user interface based on “smart controls” that seamlessly maintain harmony between under-the-hood controls and settings means anyone can drive Forza with confidence, and ensure instant sonic excellence for listeners. More advanced users will find the tools they need to craft their unique signature sound.

Forza HDS is specifically designed for L/R audio applications, including HD, DAB, and streaming audio. Its integrated, target-driven ITU-R BS.1770 loudness controller makes conforming to emerging streaming loudness requirements a set-and-forget process. For those wanting the benefits of a virtualized software processor but with the simplicity of pre-configured hardware, up to two instances of Forza FM with µMPX or up to four instances of Forza HDS processing can be pre-installed on the Telos Alliance AP-3000 platform.

 

[Big D]

The SF market FMs, for whatever reason, have always seemed to have subpar sound quality. KISQ sounds like low bitrate MP3 source audio. KSAN is flat as a pancake. Most others are over processed and way too loud. You’ll hear much cleaner FM audio in many smaller markets where they don’t have HD hiss, Voltair, and are probably still running an Optimod 8100.

 

[davideduardo]

The SF market FMs, for whatever reason, have always seemed to have subpar sound quality. KISQ sounds like low bitrate MP3 source audio. KSAN is flat as a pancake. Most others are over processed and way too loud. You’ll hear much cleaner FM audio in many smaller markets where they don’t have HD hiss, Voltair, and are probably still running an Optimod 8100.

I don't think many stations are using the Voltair any longer. It was basically discontinued when Nielsen updated the PPM encoding about a decade ago.

And most stations have upgraded from the Optimod 8100 as the newer ones use a much more sophisticated process that delays the "real" audio so that the processing can "look ahead" and not attack waveforms that are already increasing in amplitude.