• 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

HD-radio future

So what are you proposing, Mike? A return to the “ping-pong” stereo recording of some of the early (late Fifties) stereo demonstration records? Or perhaps a train running through your living room in a radio drama?

Seriously, though you’re right about our being “c[ap]able of hearing direction, and even depth (distance),” but we seldom hear those things in recordings of any form of popular music. The typical pop recording, where everything is separately miked and pan-potted into its place on a synthetic stereo “stage”, doesn’t give the listener the correct phase clues. The apparent placement depends on the relative level of that particular voice or instrument on the two channels.

Worse yet, the labels that own some of the first rock’n’roll hits that were mastered on four- or eight-track machines – and then mixed down into mono, because they were conceived as mono – have taken it upon themselves to arbitrarily assign the tracks to either (or both) of two channels to create “stereo” mixes the original producers never conceived.

Of course, this isn’t real stereo; I like to call it “multiple mono.”

Back in the Sixties and Seventies, that technique was also applied to some otherwise appealing classical recordings, with CBS/Columbia (now Sony) being the worst offender. In the worst cases, the producers practically put every soloist in the orchestra in your lap! Those records actually sounded better when played monaurally. Then, it was no worse than an interesting movie with too many close-ups.

Fortunately, the advent of digital recording brought a return to simpler, purist miking in classical recordings. (But this was not, as analog haters would have it, because digital was more “revealing” of the weaknesses of multiple mono. Rather, the needlessly complex, often muddy sound of those bad mixes – which was very apparent on an LP played on a good system – taxed the capabilities of the earliest, usually ditherless, digital recorders far more heavily than the simpler, and far more realistic, signals from purist miking.)

But as for radio drama – or comedy – I’ll concede that stereo can be effective. After all, I have heard the Firesign Theater albums.
 
With respect, quit putting words in my mouth! I'm a production "wizard", and studio owner. I realize very well that hard-panning causes a loss in loudness for mono listeners. And it's distracting having someone talk for a long time...OVER HERE. That's not what I'm proposing at all.

But there are lots of great uses for stereo, to enhance the experience, to put the listener IN THE ACTION. Digital recorders and high quality m/s microphones (which are completely mono-compatible) are now cheaper than the Marantz cassette units they replace. When gathering location audio, bring back a taste of the environment in which the audio was recorded (or broadcast). Voices still belong dead center, but DAMN the impact of a game where the audience and sound from the field is in stereo, a news actuality where you can not only hear the person speaking, but EXPERIENCE the environment in which the interview takes place. These are a couple of examples. And anything which is pre-produced...commercials, promos, bumpers, etc...whould be STEREO. It TREMENDOUSLY enhances the experience!

We should no more consider strict mono broadcasting acceptable on FM than should TV consider strict black and white broadcasting. Don't insult me (or exaggerate my point). There are lots of stereo production/miking techniques that are consistent with good engineering principles, and mono-compatible. Why assume less of my point, or of the ability of our industry to use the tools available to us...ALL OF THEM, analog and digital?
 
Mike, our differences here are primarily aesthetic ones.

In 1971, when color TV was finally becoming ubiquitous, Peter Bogdanovich shot The Last Picture Show in black-and-white. Why? Because there’s no way you can make the Texas sky in those outdoor scenes depressing enough in color to fit in with the story line.

And the film was nominated for an Academy Award for cinematography. You may wonder how it could be nominated despite being in b/w, but I think it was nominated at least in part because it was monochromatic, and the look set the proper tone for the story. There are places, even today, for black-and-white. (And don’t even get me started on “colorization”!)

The same applies to mono. It’s not only that I think the mono aesthetic is the correct one for most pop music. Even with classical music, I’d rather hear one first-rate channel of sound, with a full frequency range and low distortion, than two tinny and/or boomy channels with distortion just for some directional effects.
 
Who's talkin' about two "tinny or boomy" channels? I agree that more isn't NECESSARILY better, and that color isn't always the proper choice for photography (after all, I'm an Ansel Adams fan!) But if you "throw the switch" and turn off stereo, you've taken away the ABILITY to broadcast sound with direction and dimension. Merely making, or running a black and white movie, or a mono recording doesn't do that ;)

I don't quibble with there being mono content, particularly on talk stations. I quibble with there NEVER being stereo content, even when it would be relatively easy and cheap to do, and would substantially enhance the experience. THAT indicates (to me) a real lack of imagination and creativity.

Want me to photography your portrait in black and white? That's cool. Tell me I get to ONLY work in black and white (or mono), and "Houston, we have a problem!" ;)

I guess I'm weird, but when I produce a spot, or promo that I KNOW will only run on AM stations, I still do it in stereo. That's how I HEAR. It's how I think. It's how I mix. And lots of AMs webcast in stereo, anyway! (Of course I check ALL mixes for mono-compatibility!)
 
Mike Walker said:
Who's talkin' about two "tinny or boomy" channels? I agree that more isn't NECESSARILY better,

There's plenty of good stereo material out there for the picking. My favorite is Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody".

It just doesn't sound the same when played over a monophonic radio or tape player.
 
Ain't it da' truff! The DEATH PENALTY is too good for anyone who would play Bohemian Rhapsody in mono!
 
mgpt6 said:
if I was Kevin Martin of the FCC this is what I would do with IBOC and radio in general.
First with FM IBOC allow digital in the band from 61-99 Khz ,now the SCA band width to allow more bits for an extra HD channel or higher bit allocation to current HD channels.
In later years ,when penetration is higher allow , IBOC digital in the range of 20-60 KHz , now the range of the stereo L-R difference signal and RDS signal.I would keep the analog mono FM signal from baseband to 20Khz for legacy FM radios.At this point 5.1 surround and some more HD channels could be added.
The second thing I would do after 2009 would be to extend the FM band to add 76- 88 MHz. ( the present TV Ch 5 and 6) I would move Class 3 and Class 4 AM stations to the new FM band. They could have a Class A FM allocation.Class 2 AM stations could be given the option to stay in the AM Band or be given a Class B FM allocation in the new extended FM Band. Class 1 AM stations would stay on the AM band with fixes to the current AM IBOC system. DO I think this would happen, I doubt it but it would be logical. For the adding digital IBOC band width to FM that I hope will happpen in future years.

The first part of your description is called FMeXtra, which I always thought as the logical system for a digital platform as it leaves FM as-is except for the subcarrier services. Actually, I would purchase one of those old Pioneer receivers with the 'quad' output jacks, hoping for an adapter...or mod one myself.

As for the 'band shifting' you describe for FM Digital, why would the current big players oppose any new real estate, especially in an all digital platform? I'll give you a hint: Sarnoff Vs. Armstrong, AM Vs. FM.

See also 'Logic Vs. Big Business' vis a vis the horrible quality of cell phones.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom