• 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

Separating AM from FM HD

D

DoogieDown

Guest
I suggest we keep our discussions of AM and FM HD Radio separate.

I think FM HD is pretty cool. I especially like the emergence of HD2 signals which, incidentally, wouldn't exist if it weren't for National Public Radio's campaigning.

BUT... !!! HD on the AM dial is flat out disappointing. It takes a real corporate pod to say otherwise. (Sidenote: It recently came to my attention that groups of whales are called "pods," and I'd just like to say that I don't mean to libel whales when I apply the same term to mindless corporate shills).

Now, I don't doubt that Corporate Radio will bulldoze forward with HD Radio on the AM dial. But it's a real shame--and an embarrassing miscalculation--that this new technology sounds really BAD on the same radios that were purchased to enjoy GOOD sounding AM analog signals. How's that for alienating the P1?

So, in effect, AM stations are going forward with a major handicap. Significant groups of listeners who own (whether they realize it or not) radios set to wide or medium bandwidths are going to experience an extremely irritating hiss. And a measurable group of THOSE listeners will not be buying an HD Radio anytime soon. The result? AM HD stations will automatically reduce their potential number of listeners. And, in many cases, they will have turned away previously devoted listeners.
 
> I suggest we keep our discussions of AM and FM HD Radio
> separate.
>
> I think FM HD is pretty cool. I especially like the
> emergence of HD2 signals which, incidentally, wouldn't exist
> if it weren't for National Public Radio's campaigning.
>
> BUT... !!! HD on the AM dial is flat out disappointing. It
> takes a real corporate pod to say otherwise. (Sidenote: It
> recently came to my attention that groups of whales are
> called "pods," and I'd just like to say that I don't mean to
> libel whales when I apply the same term to mindless
> corporate shills).
>
> Now, I don't doubt that Corporate Radio will bulldoze
> forward with HD Radio on the AM dial. But it's a real
> shame--and an embarrassing miscalculation--that this new
> technology sounds really BAD on the same radios that were
> purchased to enjoy GOOD sounding AM analog signals. How's
> that for alienating the P1?
>
> So, in effect, AM stations are going forward with a major
> handicap. Significant groups of listeners who own (whether
> they realize it or not) radios set to wide or medium
> bandwidths are going to experience an extremely irritating
> hiss. And a measurable group of THOSE listeners will not be
> buying an HD Radio anytime soon. The result? AM HD
> stations will automatically reduce their potential number of
> listeners. And, in many cases, they will have turned away
> previously devoted listeners.
>


It does get confusing when you don't know if a person is talking about AM IBOC or FM IBOC. There are some major differences between the two, as well as a completely separate list of issues with AM.

I also think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here that thinks that AM IBOC is great and should be pushed through as is. I know of companies that are rapidly rolling out FM IBOC, but won't touch AM IBOC at all.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
I disagree. Both systems are defective, incompatible, and cause more trouble and expense then any small benefit they may provide.
Here is a link to my reasons:
http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Board=hd&Post=672409

> I suggest we keep our discussions of AM and FM HD Radio
> separate.
>
> I think FM HD is pretty cool. I especially like the
> emergence of HD2 signals which, incidentally, wouldn't exist
> if it weren't for National Public Radio's campaigning.
>
> BUT... !!! HD on the AM dial is flat out disappointing. It
> takes a real corporate pod to say otherwise. (Sidenote: It
> recently came to my attention that groups of whales are
> called "pods," and I'd just like to say that I don't mean to
> libel whales when I apply the same term to mindless
> corporate shills).
>
> Now, I don't doubt that Corporate Radio will bulldoze
> forward with HD Radio on the AM dial. But it's a real
> shame--and an embarrassing miscalculation--that this new
> technology sounds really BAD on the same radios that were
> purchased to enjoy GOOD sounding AM analog signals. How's
> that for alienating the P1?
>
> So, in effect, AM stations are going forward with a major
> handicap. Significant groups of listeners who own (whether
> they realize it or not) radios set to wide or medium
> bandwidths are going to experience an extremely irritating
> hiss. And a measurable group of THOSE listeners will not be
> buying an HD Radio anytime soon. The result? AM HD
> stations will automatically reduce their potential number of
> listeners. And, in many cases, they will have turned away
> previously devoted listeners.
>
 
> I disagree. Both systems are defective, incompatible, and
> cause more trouble and expense then any small benefit they
> may provide.
> Here is a link to my reasons:
> http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Board=hd&Post=672409
>

Let me clarify.

SuperSound THINKS both systems are defective, incompatible, etc., but can't prove it.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
No need to. Both the FCC and iBiquity prove the deficiencies, they just claim the possible benefits might outweigh the serious interference defects.
I disagree.
The possible benefits are small, long term, future projections, and unproven, while the interference is here now, and increasing as more HD stations sign on.

> > I disagree. Both systems are defective, incompatible, and
> > cause more trouble and expense then any small benefit they
>
> > may provide.
> > Here is a link to my reasons:
> > http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Board=hd&Post=672409
> >
>
> Let me clarify.
>
> SuperSound THINKS both systems are defective, incompatible,
> etc., but can't prove it.
>
 
> No need to. Both the FCC and iBiquity prove the
> deficiencies, they just claim the possible benefits might
> outweigh the serious interference defects.
> I disagree.
> The possible benefits are small, long term, future
> projections, and unproven, while the interference is here
> now, and increasing as more HD stations sign on.
>

You are, once again, invited to show proof of the interference.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
I have. Repeatedly!
http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com

> > No need to. Both the FCC and iBiquity prove the
> > deficiencies, they just claim the possible benefits might
> > outweigh the serious interference defects.
> > I disagree.
> > The possible benefits are small, long term, future
> > projections, and unproven, while the interference is here
> > now, and increasing as more HD stations sign on.
> >
>
> You are, once again, invited to show proof of the
> interference.
>
 
> I have. Repeatedly!
> http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com

No, you haven't. What you've shown hasn't proven anything, and it's been beaten to death. Several posters here have proven that the data you link to is flawed. We've offered to have you post updated, more scientific tests, but you refuse.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Since the data and charts I link to are from iBiquity then your posters and youself have proven the HD System flawed?
http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com

> > I have. Repeatedly!
> > http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
>
> No, you haven't. What you've shown hasn't proven anything,
> and it's been beaten to death. Several posters here have
> proven that the data you link to is flawed. We've offered
> to have you post updated, more scientific tests, but you
> refuse.
>
 
All right, I have had enough of this.

> > I have. Repeatedly!
> > http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
>
> No, you haven't. What you've shown hasn't proven anything,
> and it's been beaten to death. Several posters here have
> proven that the data you link to is flawed. We've offered
> to have you post updated, more scientific tests, but you
> refuse.

Look...

Three years ago, I ripped on the Ibiquity system because it was being pushed to the FCC as a wonderful system. Back then, it was crap. Utter crap. Think
16 kb streaming audio off of Windows Media Player.

To their credit, Ibiquity released a new generation of codecs.
Now, AM IBOC pretty much sounds the same as FM stereo, and
FM sounds better than CD, even with multicasting. Want proof?
Buy an HD radio. LISTEN to it. Now, if the station is merely
rebroadcasting their AM or FM station as is, then yes, you'll
notice less snow, but the same dynamic range. But, do it
with a station on its own audio board, and holy cow!

RadioDoc is a chief engineer at Entercom up in Milwaukee, WI.
Let's just say he doesn't spend money on crap. He knows what is good.
I listened as he turned utterly pathetic sounding stations in suburban
Chicago to gems. I'll never forget after he got his hands
on a southwest suburban 1 kilowatter AM and subsequently
made the audio better sounding than major AM stations in
Chicago. Whatever he has touched has turned to ear sweetness
gold. That never, EVER comes by accident.

So when Doc talks, I listen, and while I check the facts, I always
give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since he is responsible
for buying and implementing everything for his part in the
company, as it relates to broadcasting equipment. He can't
afford to lose market share because of poor sound. And
if the largest radio conglomerate implements it, opinions
about Clear Channel be hanged...at least in their engineering
practices, they're generally very well done shops.

The digital radio challenges are NOT interference in almost all areas.
(If you choose to live in an area to get away from it all,
or is away from it all, you may accomplish just that).
It's not power levels...right now, it is, but digital TV
is going through that growing pain right now.
It's not cheap receivers, though they are needed to make it grow, for sure.

What IS needed, plain and simple, is *quality*, high-fidelity programming.
A local DTV station broadcasts an amazingly high quality SD
picture...of "Shop at Home". HD program on TV range from good to garbage.
Digital, high-definition crap is still...crap. That's something
Ibiquity cannot cure. Only a combination of live-and-local,
quality programming AND better-than-CD quality sound will
bring listeners back to radio. The young Ipod generation
has been written off, and they're the next 18-34 demo that
won't know what AM and FM means, much less digital. That, folks,
is the challenge we face, not whether or not 70 miles out
your 250 watt pea-shooter gets a little buzz in the audio.
And that is beyond the spectrum of this board and of engineering.
 
Re: All right, why all this defensive ranor?

This may surprize you, but I agree with several of the good points you have made! The bad ones, I'll let pass, to maintain peace.
Better programming would make a difference. Broadcasters already put their best (or what they think is the best) on the main analog channels where there are large numbers of listeners. Most of the programming on the digital channels is likely to be their second or third rate product.
SEE, I AGREE!
Why all the defensive rancor?
I thought this was to be a discussion board, not a continuing advertisement proclaiming the supposed wonders and inflated hype of the HD radio consortium.

> > > I have. Repeatedly!
> > > http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
> >
> > No, you haven't. What you've shown hasn't proven
> anything,
> > and it's been beaten to death. Several posters here have
> > proven that the data you link to is flawed. We've offered
>
> > to have you post updated, more scientific tests, but you
> > refuse.
>
> Look...
>
> Three years ago, I ripped on the Ibiquity system because it
> was being pushed to the FCC as a wonderful system. Back
> then, it was crap. Utter crap. Think
> 16 kb streaming audio off of Windows Media Player.
>
> To their credit, Ibiquity released a new generation of
> codecs.
> Now, AM IBOC pretty much sounds the same as FM stereo, and
> FM sounds better than CD, even with multicasting. Want
> proof?
> Buy an HD radio. LISTEN to it. Now, if the station is merely
>
> rebroadcasting their AM or FM station as is, then yes,
> you'll
> notice less snow, but the same dynamic range. But, do it
> with a station on its own audio board, and holy cow!
>
> RadioDoc is a chief engineer at Entercom up in Milwaukee,
> WI.
> Let's just say he doesn't spend money on crap. He knows what
> is good.
> I listened as he turned utterly pathetic sounding stations
> in suburban
> Chicago to gems. I'll never forget after he got his hands
> on a southwest suburban 1 kilowatter AM and subsequently
> made the audio better sounding than major AM stations in
> Chicago. Whatever he has touched has turned to ear sweetness
>
> gold. That never, EVER comes by accident.
>
> So when Doc talks, I listen, and while I check the facts, I
> always
> give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since he is
> responsible
> for buying and implementing everything for his part in the
> company, as it relates to broadcasting equipment. He can't
> afford to lose market share because of poor sound. And
> if the largest radio conglomerate implements it, opinions
> about Clear Channel be hanged...at least in their
> engineering
> practices, they're generally very well done shops.
>
> The digital radio challenges are NOT interference in almost
> all areas.
> (If you choose to live in an area to get away from it all,
> or is away from it all, you may accomplish just that).
> It's not power levels...right now, it is, but digital TV
> is going through that growing pain right now.
> It's not cheap receivers, though they are needed to make it
> grow, for sure.
>
> What IS needed, plain and simple, is *quality*,
> high-fidelity programming.
> A local DTV station broadcasts an amazingly high quality SD
> picture...of "Shop at Home". HD program on TV range from
> good to garbage.
> Digital, high-definition crap is still...crap. That's
> something
> Ibiquity cannot cure. Only a combination of live-and-local,
> quality programming AND better-than-CD quality sound will
> bring listeners back to radio. The young Ipod generation
> has been written off, and they're the next 18-34 demo that
> won't know what AM and FM means, much less digital. That,
> folks,
> is the challenge we face, not whether or not 70 miles out
> your 250 watt pea-shooter gets a little buzz in the audio.
> And that is beyond the spectrum of this board and of
> engineering.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SuperSound on 03/06/06 08:10 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: All right, I have had enough of this.

IBOC CD quality? What have you been smoking? The reason the Record industry wants the flag is this phoney CD thing. Is satellite radio CD quality? No way Neither is digital radio. Even at the full bandwidth available on FM IBOC, there is no CD quality. You want CD quality?? Cut back the processors so they arent clipping so hard to make them loud.....



> > > I have. Repeatedly!
> > > http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
> >
> > No, you haven't. What you've shown hasn't proven
> anything,
> > and it's been beaten to death. Several posters here have
> > proven that the data you link to is flawed. We've offered
>
> > to have you post updated, more scientific tests, but you
> > refuse.
>
> Look...
>
> Three years ago, I ripped on the Ibiquity system because it
> was being pushed to the FCC as a wonderful system. Back
> then, it was crap. Utter crap. Think
> 16 kb streaming audio off of Windows Media Player.
>
> To their credit, Ibiquity released a new generation of
> codecs.
> Now, AM IBOC pretty much sounds the same as FM stereo, and
> FM sounds better than CD, even with multicasting. Want
> proof?
> Buy an HD radio. LISTEN to it. Now, if the station is merely
>
> rebroadcasting their AM or FM station as is, then yes,
> you'll
> notice less snow, but the same dynamic range. But, do it
> with a station on its own audio board, and holy cow!
>
> RadioDoc is a chief engineer at Entercom up in Milwaukee,
> WI.
> Let's just say he doesn't spend money on crap. He knows what
> is good.
> I listened as he turned utterly pathetic sounding stations
> in suburban
> Chicago to gems. I'll never forget after he got his hands
> on a southwest suburban 1 kilowatter AM and subsequently
> made the audio better sounding than major AM stations in
> Chicago. Whatever he has touched has turned to ear sweetness
>
> gold. That never, EVER comes by accident.
>
> So when Doc talks, I listen, and while I check the facts, I
> always
> give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since he is
> responsible
> for buying and implementing everything for his part in the
> company, as it relates to broadcasting equipment. He can't
> afford to lose market share because of poor sound. And
> if the largest radio conglomerate implements it, opinions
> about Clear Channel be hanged...at least in their
> engineering
> practices, they're generally very well done shops.
>
> The digital radio challenges are NOT interference in almost
> all areas.
> (If you choose to live in an area to get away from it all,
> or is away from it all, you may accomplish just that).
> It's not power levels...right now, it is, but digital TV
> is going through that growing pain right now.
> It's not cheap receivers, though they are needed to make it
> grow, for sure.
>
> What IS needed, plain and simple, is *quality*,
> high-fidelity programming.
> A local DTV station broadcasts an amazingly high quality SD
> picture...of "Shop at Home". HD program on TV range from
> good to garbage.
> Digital, high-definition crap is still...crap. That's
> something
> Ibiquity cannot cure. Only a combination of live-and-local,
> quality programming AND better-than-CD quality sound will
> bring listeners back to radio. The young Ipod generation
> has been written off, and they're the next 18-34 demo that
> won't know what AM and FM means, much less digital. That,
> folks,
> is the challenge we face, not whether or not 70 miles out
> your 250 watt pea-shooter gets a little buzz in the audio.
> And that is beyond the spectrum of this board and of
> engineering.
>
 
Re: All right, I have had enough of this.

> IBOC CD quality? What have you been smoking? The reason
> the Record industry wants the flag is this phoney CD thing.
> Is satellite radio CD quality? No way Neither is digital
> radio. Even at the full bandwidth available on FM IBOC,
> there is no CD quality. You want CD quality?? Cut back the
> processors so they arent clipping so hard to make them
> loud.....
>
>


Thats exactly what most of us arew doing with HD Radio.


>
> > > > I have. Repeatedly!
> > > > http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > No, you haven't. What you've shown hasn't proven
> > anything,
> > > and it's been beaten to death. Several posters here
> have
> > > proven that the data you link to is flawed. We've
> offered
> >
> > > to have you post updated, more scientific tests, but you
>
> > > refuse.
> >
> > Look...
> >
> > Three years ago, I ripped on the Ibiquity system because
> it
> > was being pushed to the FCC as a wonderful system. Back
> > then, it was crap. Utter crap. Think
> > 16 kb streaming audio off of Windows Media Player.
> >
> > To their credit, Ibiquity released a new generation of
> > codecs.
> > Now, AM IBOC pretty much sounds the same as FM stereo, and
>
> > FM sounds better than CD, even with multicasting. Want
> > proof?
> > Buy an HD radio. LISTEN to it. Now, if the station is
> merely
> >
> > rebroadcasting their AM or FM station as is, then yes,
> > you'll
> > notice less snow, but the same dynamic range. But, do it
> > with a station on its own audio board, and holy cow!
> >
> > RadioDoc is a chief engineer at Entercom up in Milwaukee,
> > WI.
> > Let's just say he doesn't spend money on crap. He knows
> what
> > is good.
> > I listened as he turned utterly pathetic sounding stations
>
> > in suburban
> > Chicago to gems. I'll never forget after he got his hands
> > on a southwest suburban 1 kilowatter AM and subsequently
> > made the audio better sounding than major AM stations in
> > Chicago. Whatever he has touched has turned to ear
> sweetness
> >
> > gold. That never, EVER comes by accident.
> >
> > So when Doc talks, I listen, and while I check the facts,
> I
> > always
> > give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since he is
> > responsible
> > for buying and implementing everything for his part in the
>
> > company, as it relates to broadcasting equipment. He can't
>
> > afford to lose market share because of poor sound. And
> > if the largest radio conglomerate implements it, opinions
> > about Clear Channel be hanged...at least in their
> > engineering
> > practices, they're generally very well done shops.
> >
> > The digital radio challenges are NOT interference in
> almost
> > all areas.
> > (If you choose to live in an area to get away from it all,
>
> > or is away from it all, you may accomplish just that).
> > It's not power levels...right now, it is, but digital TV
> > is going through that growing pain right now.
> > It's not cheap receivers, though they are needed to make
> it
> > grow, for sure.
> >
> > What IS needed, plain and simple, is *quality*,
> > high-fidelity programming.
> > A local DTV station broadcasts an amazingly high quality
> SD
> > picture...of "Shop at Home". HD program on TV range from
> > good to garbage.
> > Digital, high-definition crap is still...crap. That's
> > something
> > Ibiquity cannot cure. Only a combination of
> live-and-local,
> > quality programming AND better-than-CD quality sound will
>
> > bring listeners back to radio. The young Ipod generation
> > has been written off, and they're the next 18-34 demo that
>
> > won't know what AM and FM means, much less digital. That,
> > folks,
> > is the challenge we face, not whether or not 70 miles out
> > your 250 watt pea-shooter gets a little buzz in the audio.
>
> > And that is beyond the spectrum of this board and of
> > engineering.
> >
>
 
Re: All right, why all this defensive ranor?

> This may surprize you, but I agree with several of the good
> points you have made! The bad ones, I'll let pass, to
> maintain peace.
> Better programming would make a difference. Broadcasters
> already put their best (or what they think is the best) on
> the main analog channels where there are large numbers of
> listeners. Most of the programming on the digital channels
> is likely to be their second or third rate product.
> SEE, I AGREE!
> Why all the defensive rancor?
> I thought this was to be a discussion board, not a
> continuing advertisement proclaiming the supposed wonders
> and inflated hype of the HD radio consortium.
>


That's the problem. It's NOT the inflated hype of the HD radio consortium. It is real people discussing facts. I'm an average guy who installs this stuff. I know the science behind it. I think HD (at least of FM) is important, and when done properly has no ill effects. I've gone though great lengths (as most engineers have) to make sure that the signals are well within the FCC mandated (read: legal) mask. We've done tests to make sure we don't interfere.

In every case, all was well. I believe the system works well. With the right programming, HD radio will do great things. Not today, not tomorrow, but soon.

I agree, I am sick of the arguing. Believe it or not, I have no issues with opposing points of view. I do, however have problems with answering questions on this board with "IBOC is flawed" without attaching it to an opinion.

If you state "in my opinion..." then go on to talk about your stuff, that's one thing. But if you wish to present it as fact, be prepared to prove it as such. I will.

I discussion board is just that, a discussion. But IMHO, you tend to be like the guy who stands out on the street corner yelling the same thing over and over at anyone who passes by. You don't really appear to want to discuss anything, rather, you want converts.

I do believe that everyone here cares deeply about the same thing. Radio. We all, in our own ways, want radio to succeed. IBOC is certainly devisive. You love it or hate it. The bottom line is that for now, it's here.

If your problem is programming, fine. Let's discuss it! You don't like IBOC? Let's discuss it. But let's not shout from the street corner.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: All right, I have had enough of this.

> That, folks, is the challenge we face, not whether or not 70 miles out
> your 250 watt pea-shooter gets a little buzz in the audio.

Would you feel that way if your station was the "250 watt pea-shooter?"

Of course a 250 watt station isn't going to go 70 miles, but they do work well for 15-20 miles, which is way past their protected contour. It occurs to me that part of this argument is about small stations that can't afford IBOC who might possibly lose portions of their coverage areas. If that truly doesn't happen, then there is no problem with the current HD system. It seems that we are a little early in the game to know for sure.
 
Re: All right, I have had enough of this.

RadioDoc is a chief engineer at Entercom up in Milwaukee, WI.
Let's just say he doesn't spend money on crap. He knows what is good.
I listened as he turned utterly pathetic sounding stations in suburban
Chicago to gems. I'll never forget after he got his hands
on a southwest suburban 1 kilowatter AM and subsequently
made the audio better sounding than major AM stations in
Chicago. Whatever he has touched has turned to ear sweetness
gold. That never, EVER comes by accident.
---

Thanks for that. It was truly a labor of love, and I'm thrilled that someone appreciated it!

:)<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Digital ears?

> To their credit, Ibiquity released a new generation of
> codecs.
> Now, AM IBOC pretty much sounds the same as FM stereo, and
> FM sounds better than CD, even with multicasting.

If you think FM IBOC sounds better than a CD, then you must be the world's first person with digital ears.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
Re: All right, I have had enough of this.

> Thats exactly what most of us arew doing with HD Radio.

Analog AM radio, analog FM radio, and Compact Discs were all very dynamic when first introduced, with little or no compression/limiting/clipping used to increase loudness... but over time, all of these media have become increasingly over-processed and decreasingly "hi-fi". The same exact thing will happen to any form of digital terrestrial radio -- because while you can change the technology, you can't change the mentality that "louder is better". Even XM and Sirius are both more highly-processed than they really need to be, despite the total lack of the kind of competitive rivalry (between their own channels) which has led to the AM/FM/CD loudness wars.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
Re: All right, I have had enough of this.

> > Thats exactly what most of us arew doing with HD Radio.
>
> Analog AM radio, analog FM radio, and Compact Discs were all
> very dynamic when first introduced, with little or no
> compression/limiting/clipping used to increase loudness...
> but over time, all of these media have become increasingly
> over-processed and decreasingly "hi-fi". The same exact
> thing will happen to any form of digital terrestrial radio
> -- because while you can change the technology, you can't
> change the mentality that "louder is better". Even XM and
> Sirius are both more highly-processed than they really need
> to be, despite the total lack of the kind of competitive
> rivalry (between their own channels) which has led to the
> AM/FM/CD loudness wars.
>
This person knows his shi'i't'e'. Did I get those apostrophes right?
 
Re: All right, I have had enough of this.

> > Thats exactly what most of us arew doing with HD Radio.
>
> Analog AM radio, analog FM radio, and Compact Discs were all
> very dynamic when first introduced, with little or no
> compression/limiting/clipping used to increase loudness...
> but over time, all of these media have become increasingly
> over-processed and decreasingly "hi-fi". The same exact
> thing will happen to any form of digital terrestrial radio
> -- because while you can change the technology, you can't
> change the mentality that "louder is better". Even XM and
> Sirius are both more highly-processed than they really need
> to be, despite the total lack of the kind of competitive
> rivalry (between their own channels) which has led to the
> AM/FM/CD loudness wars.
>

I would agree that some CDs and audio from studios come to broadcasters too processed. I ahev had a number of conversations with our people about how we can convince the studios to give us more of a raw cut. Some of the processing (Nashville in particular IMHO) that comes off of these music pieces plays havoc with the processing we are trying to do.

That beign said, it is still important for a radio station to add some processing. Your "typical" listener is listening in an evnviroment that usually has ambient noise. ie a car. If you dont process you will have too many peaks and valleys where the listener will need to turn the volume up and down. A fine example is NPRs Whadya Know? show. When I listen, I find that I am turning the volume up and down. It becomes quite irritating!

Yes I have PDs that want us to be at least competitve loudness wise, but we are not always the loudest in the market. We try for the fine line of decent loudness and good sound.

On HD1 and 2 I am running processing that is equivalent to a "Classical" setting. But I do a little tweaking on the EQ. It provides and minimal compression setting. giving some leveling, but not processing to the teeth like some analog stations can. That over processing is like fingernails on the chalk board.

Funny with all of this discussion about processing, I truly wonder how many of the "average listener" really notices the difference.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom