To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob maybe)

[rrsounds]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

You can't process the "bad" out of what is bad music to begin with. I come from another techinal background entirely and am semi-retired. Helped out a a station for a friend and it turned into a more full time thing with a show and time at the board as well starting to learn the air chain thing. I won't play it on my show if it has no dynamics and the vocals are not on top of the mix. I didn't realize until I got around this business that so many stations sound so bad simply because the music is so bad and poorly produced to begin with.

Unfortunately this is the "state of the art" in recording.

Processor makers (and users) can only do their best to minimize the **addition** of more distortion.
I completely agree that reducing the distortion already existing in the programming itself is difficult, if not impossible.

While we may not be able to make it better, we certainly don't need to use that as an excuse to make it worse!

Kind Regards,
David

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

No digital factory preset I have heard has been anything better than (barely) a starting point. In fact, I have heard many factory presets that make me wonder just who is actually building these things.

Playing devil's advocate here: I assume the guys who come up with these presets have to make lots of presets -- and with deadlines to meet, because the manufacturer wants to get the box on the market. So there's probably not much time you can spend on fine-tuning each and every detail of a particular preset.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the designers assume that the station engineer is going to tweak the presets anyway.

 

[FFoti1]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

Playing devil's advocate here: I assume the guys who come up with these presets have to make lots of presets -- and with deadlines to meet, because the manufacturer wants to get the box on the market. So there's probably not much time you can spend on fine-tuning each and every detail of a particular preset.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the designers assume that the station engineer is going to tweak the presets anyway.

Stephanie,

You're on it. As one who has done some preset development, we take many items into consideration. The presets, in our product, are starting points. Broadcast markets, the world over differ considerably, and it's *extremely* difficult to cover all forms of content, let alone what each market signature desires are.

I laugh at those who slam the presets, as they've obviously never traveled the world to get a sense of what ALL broadcasters need. While some, here, wish to nit-pick the presets, the group need to remember that prior to micro-processor based systems that offered presets, one had to setup the processing from scratch. The only 'preset', per say, was trying to set the pots to whatever location the manual suggested. (This is assuming the manual was even looked at.)

I think it would take on the order of about 1000, or more factory presets to even begin to get close for most folks. I'm not kidding either. All the more reason we post presets sent in by others, as we know there are many alternatives to the use of a processor.

-Frank Foti

 

[The F Mister]

I Agree with you frank, and besides all the different music types and market signature you also need to consider local regulations like in Germany where processing is far less than in The Netherlands as I experience. So providing user presets on the site is a very cool thing and I would love to see more follow up this example. On the other hand (and I think you find me one of the nit-pickers you mentioned) it would be nice to ship the box with a heavy to the metal preset. It's nice to have a bunch of presets for a bunch formats that are fairly on the safe-side as a starting point. But hey, it would be so nice to see what the builder of the box things this beast can do come alive in a "do not try this at home preset" type of way.

It's like BMW says there new car can go around the track in 1:20 minute but only 5 laps, and with another setting in 1:25 minute but than do 10 laps, but never say what the best time could be. You'll just have to find out for yourself. This might seem as a strange example but car builders use the Nürburgring in Germany as a benchmark and proudly announce there track times. This is what we can do with our car setup the best way as we now it inside out and driven to the max with a pro behind the steering wheel!

Again, I do not nit-pick factory presets but only hope to see at least one with some serious balls.

 

[cgould]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

Yes -

Frank hit the nail on the head...you think he builds processors or something, and dealt with this ;-)...

What I've found when helping folks from afar is that there are so many variables that presets are just about useless except for a a set of training wheels to help get the end user going.

I spoke in a different thread how STL and broadcast antennae play a role in the resulting OVER THE AIR sound of a station, other factors such as whether or not a station is an all AES, or all analog plant leading up to the inputs of the processors play a huge role too.

I was just reminded of this when using some previous presets for other projects in a new processor at my new gig at WAPS-FM, and it makes a perfect story that wraps up what folks are saying about presets....

In an adjacent market, same processor -- but entirely different facility -- the preset sounded NOTHING like my previous station....in fact it sounded quite dull, so I had to tweak my booty off to get a decent sound. In the end, it became an entirely different preset, just for Non-Com Triple-A format.

Sending the new preset to a colleague with the same processor yielded a similar signature, but was really bright sounding on his setup, so he had to tweak the highs down a bit to get it to sound right.

Now, multiply this scenario over and over many thousands of times to represent individual stations, and who knows how many thousands of times more to represent all formats....you get the picture....



-C

 

[radiomanrw]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

This is an interesting debate. I've enjoyed and appreciated reading all of the varied opinions that have been presented thus far. I agree that an all digital chain yields significant advantages, especially in a muliple studio arrangement and on the transmitter end when considering the integrity of the stereo pilot and the advantages of "look ahead" limiting. As important as some programmers believe an "audio signature" is to their success. We should all remember the basics of why people listen to the radio. The listener tunes in a station because they like the programming and the signal is "clear". How can we define this? Does that mean station brand x is using the latest "blowtorch" processor from Orban or Omnia? Or maybe the station is using a limiter/stereo generator that is 10 plus years old, but takes great care in making sure all source audio is of the utmost integrity. Back in the early 80's, Bob Orban authored a companion manual that was shipped along with the book for the new 8100 that specifically addressed source material in the broadcast plant. Even though the original publication is outdated today..(it refered to vinyl, reel to reel recording, carts, etc.) the spirit of the recommendations applies to this day. Basically it says "garbage in -- garbage out" processing cannot disguise poor source material.

Please understand, I'm not knocking the new generation of processors, but while we've made tremendous gains in technology, somewhere along the way, the art of recording quality audio has been lost. As one who started out trying to get the best out of the old reel to reels in the production room, I'm shocked to see how crashed/crassed up some of the modern recordings are. This is not an ad for Orban, but I will have to say that
even though he makes a living out of selling the new high tech loudness boxes, Orban was way ahead of his time, promoting clean input ahead of the processor years before the cd was invented.

 

[cgould]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

This is an interesting debate. I've enjoyed and appreciated reading all of the varied opinions that have been presented thus far. I agree that an all digital chain yields significant advantages, especially in a muliple studio arrangement and on the transmitter end when considering the integrity of the stereo pilot and the advantages of "look ahead" limiting. As important as some programmers believe an "audio signature" is to their success. We should all remember the basics of why people listen to the radio. The listener tunes in a station because they like the programming and the signal is "clear". How can we define this? Does that mean station brand x is using the latest "blowtorch" processor from Orban or Omnia? Or maybe the station is using a limiter/stereo generator that is 10 plus years old, but takes great care in making sure all source audio is of the utmost integrity. Back in the early 80's, Bob Orban authored a companion manual that was shipped along with the book for the new 8100 that specifically addressed source material in the broadcast plant. Even though the original publication is outdated today..(it refered to vinyl, reel to reel recording, carts, etc.) the spirit of the recommendations applies to this day. Basically it says "garbage in -- garbage out" processing cannot disguise poor source material.

Good points!

I will point out that both Bob and Frank have a goal to clean up the sound of processing when compared to the current level of loudness vs. distortion tradeoff. Unfortunately, this translates to "cool! I can crank it up, and be louder for the same amount of distortion I had before!..." for most end users.

There is always *someone* out there who is going to push the envelope on whatever current technology is available, and create loud yet crappy sound.... And since humans seem to be wired to be "lemmings" by default, most will happily follow that guy over the cliff doing the same!



Regards,

-Cornelius

 

[fugazi]

@FMister

I Agree with you frank, and besides all the different music types and market signature you also need to consider local regulations like in Germany where processing is far less than in The Netherlands as I experience

Because germany is obliged to use ITU BS-412 ( mpx power limiting ).
This has nothing to do with market difference.

 

[wgliradio]

Playing devil's advocate here: I assume the guys who come up with these presets have to make lots of presets -- and with deadlines to meet, because the manufacturer wants to get the box on the market. So there's probably not much time you can spend on fine-tuning each and every detail of a particular preset.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the designers assume that the station engineer is going to tweak the presets anyway.

When I was working with DSP-X and looking at the Omnia ONE, there were good reference starting points in both boxes. In fact, in the Omnia, there was maybe one or two presets that were totally disqualified, that was it. Not bad for ears that are miles away.

What is difficult about factory presets for non skilled end users is the ability to get good sound out of the box right away. When I was doing presets for the DSP-X, I was usually contacted after the end user was aggrivated and out of patience. It was fun to work under pressure to achieve a preset that made the end user happy, but at the same time, it would have been more productive if that person had tried to contact me before they went too far into something they were having a hard time dealing with.

 

[cgould]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

...but at the same time, it would have been more productive if that person had tried to contact me before they went too far into something they were having a hard time dealing with.

Isn't that how it always goes?



-Cornelius

 

[RealityCheckr]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

It would also be nice if users would carefully read the manual but......


Another Reality Check brought to you by Reality Checkr!

 

[gtomas]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

...but at the same time, it would have been more productive if that person had tried to contact me before they went too far into something they were having a hard time dealing with.

Isn't that how it always goes?

OTOH, then they more appreciate the work that you do for them


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[gtomas]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

It would also be nice if users would carefully read the manual but......

Definitely!


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[RealityCheckr]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

LA Guy,

thanks for the lead on those T-amps. Exactly what I was looking for and exactly the right price range for what I needed.

All the best.

 

[rorban]

No digital factory preset I have heard has been anything better than (barely) a starting point. In fact, I have heard many factory presets that make me wonder just who is actually building these things.

Playing devil's advocate here: I assume the guys who come up with these presets have to make lots of presets -- and with deadlines to meet, because the manufacturer wants to get the box on the market. So there's probably not much time you can spend on fine-tuning each and every detail of a particular preset.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the designers assume that the station engineer is going to tweak the presets anyway.

Greg Ogonowski and I spent months creating Optimod presets, which require creating not only the presets one hears when one first calls up a factory preset, but all of the less-more variations too. With our the AM processors, this also involves making two sets of presets for 7.5 kHz bandwidth and above, and 7.0 kHz bandwidth and below. With our FM processors, the 75us and 50us presets are not the same. Moreover, we try to put ourselves in the shoes of listeners, who may value different aspects of audio texture than pros whose passion in life is to tweak processing.

While some broadcasters have different preferences (which is why we allow so much adjustability in our current processors), I think many people reading this board would be surprised at how many successful stations are running with an Optimod factory preset. Moreover, I have heard so many people get into trouble by creating custom presets with rookie mistakes (like tweaking the preset to sound good on only a few pieces of program material) that I long resisted requests to make Optimods more adjustable than they were in the days of the XT2. But the marketplace wants what it wants, so we eventually added adjustability to the point where all of the tweaks that are available to factory programmers are available to users. In the end, I have to wonder if this has not done more harm than good.

Bob Orban

 

[rrsounds]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

<snip>
While some broadcasters have different preferences (which is why we allow so much adjustability in our current processors), I think many people reading this board would be surprised at how many successful stations are running with an Optimod factory preset. Moreover, I have heard so many people get into trouble by creating custom presets with rookie mistakes (like tweaking the preset to sound good on only a few pieces of program material) that I long resisted requests to make Optimods more adjustable than they were in the days of the XT2. But the marketplace wants what it wants, so we eventually added adjustability to the point where all of the tweaks that are available to factory programmers are available to users. In the end, I have to wonder if this has not done more harm than good.

Bob Orban

And therein lies the rub.

On the one hand, if you, the equipment designer, have studied the parameters and know which ones 'just work', and you limit the available settings to only those, your users will never have problems outside of what you can predict. But the 'power users' (yeah, I used to be one) will say "give us more flexibility...you're restricting my ability to best use your equipment."

So, as a competitive gesture, you then open up your equipment to a wider range of settings, and more of them.

But just because someone **thinks** they're a power user doesn't necessarily make them one. So, not surprisingly, a less than capable user gets lost in the miasma of what they perceive as gazillionteen inscrutable settings... Their station sounds like crap, and their frustration knows no bounds ... And then they blame the equipment.

The "Less...More" solution is elegant. If people will put aside their egos long enough to use it.

Kind Regards,
David

 

[Tom Wells]

Bring back the knobs. Presets are useful for those who don't understand what they are doing.

And if they don't know what they are doing, maybe they should be doing something else, or maybe the industry
needs to establish "audio processing" 1 or 2 week courses, so they can learn how to use a processor.

The printing industry has such sophisticated products now that mfr training on presses is necessary for users to achieve
best results UNLESS the press will be run by highly experienced people, who understand how lithography worked before it was so highly automated.

The customers who can't or won't hire such people, and can't or won't utilize the training are our biggest headache.
I am dealing with just such a customer these past 3 weeks in Baton Rouge.

Here is an easy recipe for anyone to follow, and it works every time.
Blame the equipment, point fingers, tweak all the wrong things, blame the wrong things, get mad, then call the manufacturer
and tell them their product is faulty. Then expect miracles from technical support. Then get upset with on-site technical support
when the users still don't learn from gentle correction and training in proper use. Then abuse the technical support people
until you make a name for yourself where none of the tech support people even want to help anymore.
Make sure the owners come out to harrass the tech support people, question their talent, and ask how soon everything will
be perfect. Have the owners send unprofessional e-mails berating the equipment and tech support even while work is in progress.
Make sure to have the tech people distracted by fixing other old equipment and problems which should have been addressed years ago, but have been left until they are on-site because you bought the new product, and now "deserve" service.
Rinse and repeat until you are out of business.

 

[FFoti1]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

And therein lies the rub.

On the one hand, if you, the equipment designer, have studied the parameters and know which ones 'just work', and you limit the available settings to only those, your users will never have problems outside of what you can predict. But the 'power users' (yeah, I used to be one) will say "give us more flexibility...you're restricting my ability to best use your equipment."

So, as a competitive gesture, you then open up your equipment to a wider range of settings, and more of them.

But just because someone **thinks** they're a power user doesn't necessarily make them one. So, not surprisingly, a less than capable user gets lost in the miasma of what they perceive as gazillionteen inscrutable settings... Their station sounds like crap, and their frustration knows no bounds ... And then they blame the equipment.

The "Less...More" solution is elegant. If people will put aside their egos long enough to use it.

The yin & yang of processing development. David, as you well know, the industry demanded more, and developers responded. It was not like any of these products, with wider/deeper adjustability, left out the simpler means of operation. It's been my observation the simpler modes were bypassed, and the deeper functions sought out. Then, if something isn't 'right' it becomes the fault of the box, as compared to how it may have become that way.

Each week, we have a Team Omnia meeting, and some of the scenarios that the Support guys bring up, are practically unbelieveable. In just about every case, it was mis-adjustment. Even though there's a well-documented manual, web assistance, and full time support group available, some still bump into challenges. Some, I might add, are so generalist, that even a simpler designed device would be suspect.

In defense of the guys out there in the field, our industry has not helped them. Today's broadcast environment does not allow them the time to learn, tweak, or gain the needed experience with processing, in order to create a tremenodus sounding station.

Maybe we, as an industry, do need to consider some type of audio processing education program. I'd be game to do something like that. If you're interested in that idea, let me know.

-Frank Foti

 

[wgliradio]

Greg Ogonowski and I spent months creating Optimod presets, which require creating not only the presets one hears when one first calls up a factory preset, but all of the less-more variations too. With our the AM processors, this also involves making two sets of presets for 7.5 kHz bandwidth and above, and 7.0 kHz bandwidth and below. With our FM processors, the 75us and 50us presets are not the same. Moreover, we try to put ourselves in the shoes of listeners, who may value different aspects of audio texture than pros whose passion in life is to tweak processing.

While some broadcasters have different preferences (which is why we allow so much adjustability in our current processors), I think many people reading this board would be surprised at how many successful stations are running with an Optimod factory preset. Moreover, I have heard so many people get into trouble by creating custom presets with rookie mistakes (like tweaking the preset to sound good on only a few pieces of program material) that I long resisted requests to make Optimods more adjustable than they were in the days of the XT2. But the marketplace wants what it wants, so we eventually added adjustability to the point where all of the tweaks that are available to factory programmers are available to users. In the end, I have to wonder if this has not done more harm than good.

Bob Orban

Do you ever incorporate end user presets in your lists during software revisions?

 

[rrsounds]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

Bring back the knobs. Presets are useful for those who don't understand what they are doing.

And if they don't know what they are doing, maybe they should be doing something else, or maybe the industry

needs to establish "audio processing" 1 or 2 week courses, so they can learn how to use a processor.

Tom, presets can and do coexist with 'knobs.' Virtual knobs, anyway. And be careful with that word "should."

Rather than a lack of knobs, what I see as the problem are people who **should** be preset users who do not have time or interest enough to approach the 'knobs' with the expertise it takes to use them.
Yet, even with the best intentions, because of either peer or corporate pressure or perhaps ego, many end up jumping into the deep end without a life preserver (and up the creek without a paddle, to mix metaphors).

Yes, they have the presets with, in Orban's case, the 'Less... More' control to fall back on. And, God bless 'em, a lot of people do just that.
But the industry (gee I hate to bitch but really, I can't help myself) has so overworked and stretched the engineering resources, that many engineers simply don't have time to focus on processing. Sometimes processing becomes a drawn-out 'work in progress' that goes on for months; meanwhile the station sound suffers while the engineer's attention is diverted putting out fires. Busier than a set of jumper cables after a redneck family reunion, as they say.

Maybe we, as an industry, do need to consider some type of audio processing education program. I'd be game to do something like that. If you're interested in that idea, let me know.

Frank, (and Tom) I've long had the thought in the back of my mind to offer a (non-partisan) series of processing courses. It's not much different from the consultancy I've done in the past. It would be really useful for those who need it, and I'm pretty sure others on this list would be interested in pitching in, too.

But I'm afraid those who need it the most are the ones who have the least amount of time to take such a course.


Kind Regards,
David