• 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

WUMR audio somewhat fixed

M

mikl73

appears something changed over the past week

WUMR's audio is greatly improved
still nothing to brag about but you can almost listen without an ear ache
now if someone would correct the processing settings
it sounds like they have some sort of AGC that brings any sound to 100% modulation
what ever it is its smashing all dynamic range out of the audio... no highs / no low sounds
I'd say it's like the attack is set for 1ms
 
> what ever it is its smashing all dynamic range out of the
> audio... no highs / no low sounds
> I'd say it's like the attack is set for 1ms
>
It's a challenge to be competetively loud while still maintaining good sounding, non-mashed audio. The PD always wants it loud to attract listeners but then drives them away with fatigueing over processing. It's too bad everyone can't agree to back off a bit and try to be more competetive with XM and Sirius for audio quality.
 
> It's too bad everyone
> can't agree to back off a bit and try to be more competetive
> with XM and Sirius for audio quality.
>

You're kidding, right? The decades channels on XM are horribly (non) processed. The only one that comes close to acceptable is the 90's channel. I don't know if it's a bandwidth issue or if they just don't have anyone who knows how to do it.


<P ID="signature">______________
Never hold a cat and a dustbuster at the same time.</P>
 
> > It's too bad everyone
> > can't agree to back off a bit and try to be more
> competetive
> > with XM and Sirius for audio quality.
> >
>
> You're kidding, right? The decades channels on XM are
> horribly (non) processed. The only one that comes close to
> acceptable is the 90's channel. I don't know if it's a
> bandwidth issue or if they just don't have anyone who knows
> how to do it.
>
Just operating on the assumption that XM and Sirius are running less processing and better quality audio. I haven't heard either one except at in-store displays, but would think they would want to maximize their quality in their available bandwidth. Maybe not. We could still make FM sound a lot better by cleaning up our processing chain.
 
>
> Just operating on the assumption that XM and Sirius are
> running less processing and better quality audio. I haven't
> heard either one except at in-store displays, but would
> think they would want to maximize their quality in their
> available bandwidth. Maybe not. We could still make FM
> sound a lot better by cleaning up our processing chain.
>

I agree on FM. I posted something a while back lamenting that. Everyone seems to just hit a preset button on the air chain and not take time to really work on it.

XM seems to have little or no processing on some of thier channels. The 70's channel (only one example) seems totally unprocessed, and it's annoying in the car because the road noise overwhelms the music. There's too much dymanic range, and well as even tape hiss on some songs. Besides, those 70s songs don't sound like I remember them unless they're mashed :)


PS. Are you in this market? Do I know you?



<P ID="signature">______________
Never hold a cat and a dustbuster at the same time.</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radiosaur on 10/22/05 02:16 PM.</FONT></P>
 
>
> PS. Are you in this market? Do I know you?
>
No I'm not in the Memphis market, but you may well know me.
 
> >
> > PS. Are you in this market? Do I know you?
> >
> No I'm not in the Memphis market, but you may well know me.
>

OK, well if you want to, the e-mail link here for me works. I am curious.

<P ID="signature">______________
Never hold a cat and a dustbuster at the same time.</P>
 
> >
> > Just operating on the assumption that XM and Sirius are
> > running less processing and better quality audio. I
> haven't
> > heard either one except at in-store displays, but would
> > think they would want to maximize their quality in their
> > available bandwidth. Maybe not. We could still make FM
> > sound a lot better by cleaning up our processing chain.
> >
>
> I agree on FM. I posted something a while back lamenting
> that. Everyone seems to just hit a preset button on the air
> chain and not take time to really work on it.
>
> XM seems to have little or no processing on some of thier
> channels. The 70's channel (only one example) seems totally
> unprocessed, and it's annoying in the car because the road
> noise overwhelms the music. There's too much dymanic range,
> and well as even tape hiss on some songs. Besides, those 70s
> songs don't sound like I remember them unless they're mashed
> :)
>
>

Just spent the whole day listening to Soul Street on XM at work, and there's no processing whatsoever. The jock is louder than all the songs, and the songs aren't ever at the same levels. Good mix of songs though, better than any Jammin' Oldies or Soul Classics station I've ever heard. I've listened to XM online, and wondered if the lack of processing was just for the AOL stream. I guess not....
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom