[BC] RAIN report: HD Radio s Creative Thinking

[Robert Meuser]

I have spent a large part of my carrer processing stations, selling the 
gear and particpating in the development of some processing equipment. I 
fully understand how all that works. That is not the point.

 The point I was making is that while watching TV and listening in 5.1 
surround, during a commercial break that contained commercials in stereo 
and surround, the produced promo for a local FM was the smallest most 
restricted element of all the spots.  How can you sell a radio station 
when they sound "small" and uninteresting  in the promo against all the 
good to great sounding audio around it?

R



Lewis Munn wrote:

>Robert,
> 
>Are you sure it was good quality AM radio even?  Or was it compressed, shaped, peaked, distorted to make it louder, and the  digitized on some cheap system before being put into the audio stream, causing artifacts of digitizing digital??  I KNOW AM radio can sound great, but so much today is monkied with to be louder, bassier, and more distorted thinking that is "good sound" to many ears who carry the money.
> 
>I do not like the sound, but I can produce it if the manager wants.  I'd like more info on just where and why the AM radio (or was it off air FM??) bit came from and how it sounded worse.
> 
>Since I do agree with the previous folks that digitizing results in losses, and further digital processing results in more losses, and if you compare the end product to a pure analog recording on good analogue equipment you can hear the degredation.  And then digitizing again will not help.
> 
>But I also agree that the buzzword is digital, and folks learn to live with the distorted sound, the artifacts, etc...and think that that is good music.  They do not understand what Digital is...but it is new.  And so has to be better.
> 
>I talked to a kid of 26 online; he liked Mozart on bootleg recordings from Russia, where the stero below 1K was blended into one channel and the highs were clipped off at 4 KHz to save space in digitizing.  Sounded trashy to me...but he thought it was great, and got all his classical CD's for a buck apiece at the place in Russia!  
> 
>Having played some music myself in concert orchestras, and listened to many more, I DO hear the digitizing errors, and the processing artifacts all too often, and it spoils the enjoyment to that extent for me.
> 
>But it IS the latest thing, and it is a lot cheaper to handle digital audio than analogue, where so much more pains have to be taken to avoid noise and distortion.  But the attacks in analog are so much better, and a snare drum sounds precise, not like hitting some mud.
> 
>Just my thinking.  I have to remember the majority of the audience has been raised on out of tune, and ear-damagingly loud, stuff, and like it that way.  
> 
>Mourning Looey
>
>Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net> wrote:
>
>These days a lot of TV audio sounds MUCH better than radio. This begins 
>
>		
>---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>  
>