How Do You Prefer Oldies To Sound?

[Captainfirst]

What I mean is this- I'm re-ripping all of my cds and re-transferring my vinyl and tapes to get a better sound for WKOP 1990 (which, fyi, is my station on Live365). I've dropped a few bucks for some better software to process the music...

But, the question then arises...which would listeners prefer, to hear the songs as if coming over a radio on a good FM station, or as if they were being played on a good turntable and being heard through the stereo's speakers? I'm taking the time to do them both ways, so please be honest- which would you rather hear?

I personally prefer the latter, making sure, of course, that all volume levels are normalized from song to song. To my ears, they just sound better that way than as heard over a radio, but I know many people prefer to hear them "radio" style.

And if I air them radio style, that adds in the question of compression and reverb, both of which sound good on AM but, IMHO, sound bad on an internet stream.

I do have tons of spare time, so doing and redoing is no problem...I'll do these songs as many times as I need to until they sound really good.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Please no reverb or compression, Captain. I hated hearing it especially on the DJ mikes, but didn't sound right on music either. I guess my choice then is same as yours. As long as they sound clean, no distortion, are original versions etc. For example, the stereo version of "Do You Love Me" is inferior to the original mono version. I just heard a stereo version (remake or remixed?) of "Jimmy Mack" -- Sure sucked. (was played by KOMY Santa Cruz CA on their stream) BUT some stereo versions sound good anyway...an example "I Saw Her Again" Mamas and Papas. It's purely subjective, isn't it?

 

[hipporadio]

But, the question then arises...which would listeners prefer, to hear the songs as if coming over a radio on a good FM station, or as if they were being played on a good turntable and being heard through the stereo's speakers?

Captain... It’s good to hear that you are back at it! I enjoyed many of the oldies that you featured on your live late evening netcasts. I must admit that I rarely listen to ANY station at Live365 that runs in their “jukebox mode”... Nothing personal, but I have my own vault full of hits in .wav format that run on broadcast automation software with perfect crossfades and processing in full-fidelity stereo, so I look to the net for the unique “extras” offered by a live programmer. I understand that may not be practical for some—and you have to walk before you can sprint!

I’m not going to get deeply into “circular-motion” regarding audio processing. That’s an argument that nobody can win—it would be less-difficult to identify 100 oldies that EVERYONE loves! I’ll simply make the point that there are very sound technical and aesthetic reasons for it. I know of MANY popular internet broadcasters who give little pause to shelling out $5000 and up for a broadcast-station audio processor to aggressively EQ, compress, limit, and create overall “character” for their live streams. Interestingly, they are generally considered to be the most easily remembered and successful.

My personal approach would be less extreme, but still employ the moderate basics that are consistent with good audio engineering. When you choose to crank up your favorites at home—you are limited only by the dynamic capabilities of your amp's power output (and possibly your neighbor’s tolerance). Not so in radio or digital recording/transmission. Theoretical “digital zero-VU” cannot be a casually-ignored option... Exceed it, and the sound goes south INSTANTLY! “Zeros” and “ones” are absolute—there is NO “graceful degradation” as you may notice in analog recording. Always normalize... Sometimes, carefully pre-process songs with extreme dynamics: “Bridge Over Troubled Water” (Simon & Garfunkel) and “Lady” (Styx) are good examples... “Glad All Over” (Dave Clark Five) and “Dancing in the Street” (Martha Reeves) are the opposite. Tools available in even “free” programs like Audacity can be effective—but experiment and patiently learn their habits.

You may choose not to aggressively compress—but always optimize and “protect”.

And if I air them radio style, that adds in the question of compression and reverb, both of which sound good on AM but, IMHO, sound bad on an internet stream.

In reality, “internet streams”—especially those operating in basic mp3 from between 24k (mono) and 64k (stereo) are very similar to AM radio—limited fidelity and audio that is chock full of digital artifacts (the internet equivalent to noise on the AM band). Both require and benefit from a “kick in the tail”.

 

[Captainfirst]

Thanks for the input, folks. Hipporadio, you'll be glad to know that by tomorrow afternoon, I'll have enough of a library built back up to do another live show, which I hope to make a regular thing on weeknights...will probably run the live shows from 11 or so p.m. eastern till 2 a.m. or so- but if enough want it a bit earlier, I could easily change the start time to 10 and end at 1.

As for the question of how I'll process songs, it comes down to this. I do have a fairly extensive background in audio with professional training, so, I'm going to process them the way that sounds best to my ears. That means probably a bit of compression, but no reverb. I've never cared for it (especially on a dj's microphone), so I'm not going to use it.

 

[amfmsw]

Content is King. I suggest to use normalizing and limiting instead of compression. You'll still have dynamic range, but levels will be easy to listen to. Besides, compression is used for "loudness wars" on commercial radio. Yoi're above the fray. Good Luck.

 

[gunterm]

For example, the stereo version of "Do You Love Me" is inferior to the original mono version. I just heard a stereo version (remake or remixed?) of "Jimmy Mack" -- Sure sucked. (was played by KOMY Santa Cruz CA on their stream) BUT some stereo versions sound good anyway...an example "I Saw Her Again" Mamas and Papas. It's purely subjective, isn't it?

Technically there is no stereo versions of "do you love me" in the hit incarnation since Motown wiped the hit vocal take off the multitrack.... as for "Jimmy Mack", while true that it doesn't sound like the hit version, when Tom Moulton remixed the multitracks that is what he got...

As for alternate versions and stereo mixes, I believe in order to keep an interest in the Oldies format for younger people (and especially older people who have heard these songs over and over again) is to toss in a few new stereo mixes or other goodies. I'm not advocating wiping the original hit versions from your library, but I don't think it would hurt to play both!

 

[Captainfirst]

Just thought I'd let everyone know that I will be live, but not until midnight, eastern time. This will mark the beginning of my doing a live show on a regular basis, so if you miss tonight's, don't worry.

 

[amfmsw]

GUN...I recently bought a box set of Motown that had a true stereo version of both songs you mentioned, as well as many others.

I saw it on a PBS beg-a-thon as a premium for a $200 pledge. Because I know PBS is a "non-profit" farce, with huge salaries for executives, I won't bother. But I wanted the box, so I ordered it from a local music store. It was distributed by "Shout" records, and used the original hit version multi-track recordings, not the stereo mix-down tapes. It was quite a revelation. I heard many blends and instruments I never noticed before.

Also, it featured the entire length of the original hit recording. Most of the songs were faded out to get the 45 under a specific time for AM Top 40 airplay, but the master went on, sometimes for a minute or two longer. It was really a joy to listen to. My only complaint was the level of noise reduction used...way too heavy handed on some cuts. It made it sound choppy, like Dolby C does. But still, I highly recommend it.

 

[gunterm]

This box set you mention, is it called "The Motown Box" ?

http://www.amazon.com/Motown-Box-Various-Artists/dp/B000A0GPOK

That is the one I'm aware of that has the mixes you describe. There are a number of other CDs with remixes of the multis that are out there, but they're hard to find.