Dr. Tech -- thank you VERY much for the compliment! I needed a good objective opinion. ;D And our sales manager also made a good point to me a couple of days ago. When I told him that I wished we could go from 6,000 watts to 50,000, his reply was: "Lower power may not be such a bad thing. We've got enough to get out to our audience, but not enough power to forget who our audience really is." That probably sums it all up right there. Thank you again for the thumbs up...hope to hear from you again soon!
-
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
Loud or Clean: What do you think?
- Thread starter whit979
- Start date
Hey guys it is funny that this topic has come up... Although it has been about two years now I was able to help get a little oldies station back in SC sounding awesome... I guess being blind has its perks and good audio is one of them... They are using an Optimod 8200 and had no clue how to really make the thing sizzle... Myself and their CE started playing and over a period of a few days we were able to get that little puppy sounding a lot better than some of the stations in near by Columbia... After cleaning up a few audio files on their ENCO unit we started playing with the brightness... I have a lot of sight impaired friends who at one time were former jocks as well and they helped in the project... For their station it was a compromise where they wanted to be loud, but not make you cringe when you listened... They also wanted it to sound unique yet not over powering... Now they have the best of both worlds a good loud clean signal that grabs you and when you hear it it just purks up your ears even listening to some of the good ole' fifties music sounds awesome... CC1
menotti1 said:
I'm glad someone mentioned women. When making any adjustments on the processor I tend to use a woman to listen and critique. I find that a women's ear is more sensitive and will quickly tell you if the sound is pleasing or not. I personally believe that you can achieve both quality and loudness on your station especially with today's processors and associated equipment but you have to start with a clean strong quality signal and ensure it's integrity the entire path.
Here's a suggestion for a little brain exercise:
Instead of analyzing the station sound from the point of view of an engineer adjusting a processor, try to think of your station from a **listener's** standpoint.
What do they want?
It's my contention that you'll find the listener is more interested in the content, and secondly the source-to-source consistency of levels versus background noise/distortion, than **anything** else.
Loudness, spectral balance, "processed" sound etc., are all perceptions important more to those of us in the industry than to those outside it!
Which is **not ** to say, however, that they aren't important at all, especially when the extremes are considered. And there's no excuse for poor quality audio. But seriously, does anyone really think the typical listener concerns themselves with processing minutiae, when their three kids are fighting in the back of the SUV, or the morning's coffee is about to boil over, etc.?
Almost every time I have heard a station that really stood out from the others on the dial with extreme loudness and processing, it didn't take long to discover that I couldn't listen for long. This is not a good thing! Do you prefer to watch the brightest TV station? No. While there ARE special cases (extreme competition; especially poor signal, etc.), I've concluded that on the average it's really OK to let the **programming** be the attention-getter, and to let go the idea of processing as extension of ego.
So, IMHO, give the audience the programming your PD has decided they want, at a consistent (yet not necessarily in-your-face amount of consistency) level, and at an average loudness level that allows noise-free coverage over as much of your licensed territory as possible. And then stop.
(My father's saying "if you shake it more than three times, you're playing with it" applies here) ;-)
Make the signal comfortable for the average listener, remove the negatives where you can, allow the positives to come through.
If your format offers listeners something uniquely entertaining, while your processing never gives them a reason to tune away, you'll hold them indefinitely.
Kind Regards,
David Reaves
TransLanTech Sound, LLC
Instead of analyzing the station sound from the point of view of an engineer adjusting a processor, try to think of your station from a **listener's** standpoint.
What do they want?
It's my contention that you'll find the listener is more interested in the content, and secondly the source-to-source consistency of levels versus background noise/distortion, than **anything** else.
Loudness, spectral balance, "processed" sound etc., are all perceptions important more to those of us in the industry than to those outside it!
Which is **not ** to say, however, that they aren't important at all, especially when the extremes are considered. And there's no excuse for poor quality audio. But seriously, does anyone really think the typical listener concerns themselves with processing minutiae, when their three kids are fighting in the back of the SUV, or the morning's coffee is about to boil over, etc.?
Almost every time I have heard a station that really stood out from the others on the dial with extreme loudness and processing, it didn't take long to discover that I couldn't listen for long. This is not a good thing! Do you prefer to watch the brightest TV station? No. While there ARE special cases (extreme competition; especially poor signal, etc.), I've concluded that on the average it's really OK to let the **programming** be the attention-getter, and to let go the idea of processing as extension of ego.
So, IMHO, give the audience the programming your PD has decided they want, at a consistent (yet not necessarily in-your-face amount of consistency) level, and at an average loudness level that allows noise-free coverage over as much of your licensed territory as possible. And then stop.
(My father's saying "if you shake it more than three times, you're playing with it" applies here) ;-)
Make the signal comfortable for the average listener, remove the negatives where you can, allow the positives to come through.
If your format offers listeners something uniquely entertaining, while your processing never gives them a reason to tune away, you'll hold them indefinitely.
Kind Regards,
David Reaves
TransLanTech Sound, LLC
O
OnTheAir123
Guest
You can be loud AND clean but be careful not to have it to dense.
My big rule, MAKE SMALL ADJUSTMENTS, listen a day or so, adjust, listen a day or so and save memory spots as you go so if you don't like your last adjustment, you can go back one step or go back to where you started. Nothing sounds better than a properly processed station for the format they are playing!!
On the soccer mom, she only knows that station A sounds better than station B but she is not sure why. Watch your highs with women, they tend to be very sensitive to them.
8)
My big rule, MAKE SMALL ADJUSTMENTS, listen a day or so, adjust, listen a day or so and save memory spots as you go so if you don't like your last adjustment, you can go back one step or go back to where you started. Nothing sounds better than a properly processed station for the format they are playing!!
On the soccer mom, she only knows that station A sounds better than station B but she is not sure why. Watch your highs with women, they tend to be very sensitive to them.
8)
That is an outstanding point! Can't say I've ever thought of it that way, but I certainly wouldn't disagree.whit979 said:
OnTheAir123 said:
Gotta go along with that! Raunchy processing may hold up with male teens, but be extra careful with formats that lean older female.
OnTheAir123 said:
Not only that, she may not even notice consciously what she does or doesn't like, but rather just reflexively tunes away when she gets irritated by the sound.
David Reaves
Josh C. said:
Yep! I am the kind of person who always wanted a "better" sound. In the past, I got our processing set, but almost immediately after that I would start scanning the dial and hear something that I thought was better. So our processing would sometimes change from week-to-week. After really thinking about processing and the audience we want, I finally settled on a female-friendly setting. And the quote that our sales manager gave me was probably some of the best advice I got. It's easy for me to be attracted to the big, super-squashed stations that are mega loud. But we really didn't stand to gain much from being the loudest thing in town.
Needless to say, we sound great now. I would still consider changing our processing to a louder setting during the summertime. Does anybody have any thoughts on making your processing louder just during the summer months?
In my opinion, it's really better to adjust processing for the listener's sake, with respect to your format. I would only change processing if the station dayparted formats. For example: a station normally runs some sort of music format, but also does live sports coverage. I wouldd create a separate processing pre-set that would relax on the aggressiveness during the sports remotes.
the big sticks can screw around with the loudness wars, while the smart sticks caters to its demo.
R
the big sticks can screw around with the loudness wars, while the smart sticks caters to its demo.
R
David Reaves said:
Exactly. Which kind-of brings us to the point that despite the fact that listeners don't know anything about processing, they are subconsciously aware of it in a way that they either like the sound or they don't, and therefore processing is important to them.
I agree that content is a primary motivator. But processing can complement that and improve the experience, or it can work against it and be a something that hinders the experience.
Actually I would go as far as to say that if the content on two stations is not particularly appealing (or about as equally appealing), like music, the listeners will choose the one with the (subjectively) better audio quality.
Regards,
Goran Tomas
Regarding the loudness and processing density vs cleanliness/listener aggravation dilemma, I think that David summed this very well in his "Separating processing from it's effects" paper in this simple graphics:
http://www.translantech.com/NAB2006/Effects-vs-TSL2.gif
Processing audio will help get and keep your audience. But if you over do it, it will have a negative effect...
Regards,
Goran Tomas
http://www.translantech.com/NAB2006/Effects-vs-TSL2.gif
Processing audio will help get and keep your audience. But if you over do it, it will have a negative effect...
Regards,
Goran Tomas
Goran Tomas said:
I agree. That's where I think we're probably winning right now. Our on-air sound (processing) is surprisingly similar (almost identical) to the one major-market station that gives us format competition. The difference? They're 60 miles away and they've got plenty o' static. We're local and we're loud and clear.
- Status