[BC] Re: It's Eureka over IBOC down under

[Gordon Carter]

The problem with FM is not that the technical quality has slipped, or even failed to keep up.  Anyone can go out and buy for a very reasonable price equipment for broadcast and/or receiving that exceeds the performance of things we used to have to tweak and custom build to see that same performance.  If you take all the processing out of any modern broadcast chain, you will probably see (or hear) the same quality we had 40 years ago.

The processing wars are the real culprit here.

Don't get me wrong.  There are several excellent processors out there, including your's David.  The problem is not the processor but the way it is used.  I don't want to get into a big long discussion of proper processing, because that is really a very individual choice, but so many stations have fallen prey to the "louder is better" myth.

However, even the most conservative broadcasters (processing, not politics) probably should re-think their approach.  Our modern world has raised the ambient noise floor of almost everything.  Most people can only stand to be in a really quiet space for a few minutes.  Cars, airplanes, trains (what an enjoyable sound the right one can be!) motors, air conditioning, etc. all contribute to this.  The reality is that we may need to do more processing than we think just to keep above the noise floor of the world.

Many other things have contributed to a lowering of expectation of our sound choices, but FM quality is potentially better than ever.

Gordon S. Carter, CPBE, CBNT
Chief Engineer
WFMT and The Radio Network
5400 North St. Louis Ave.
Chicago, IL 60625
773 279-2071
-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net [mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of RRSounds at aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 7:15 AM
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Cc: David at translantech.com
Subject: [BC] Re: It's Eureka over IBOC down under


It makes me feel so old to say this, BUT...

When I was young, Broadcast FM radio was the cleanest, most dynamic and 
spectrally broad, lowest distortion audio source most people had access too.?

Of course the engineering staff at any particular station had quite a bit of 
control over how seriously they took that capability, but nonetheless, 
technically FM could equal or beat any other consumer audio source!

And while one could listen to FM on inferior equipment and have an inferior 
but adequate listening experience, one could also spend more and ultimately 
have a more hi-fi experience. The 'adequate' experience was merely one subset of 
the bigger universe of radio listening.

The present paradigm doesn't allow for that. The better the receiving 
equipment you buy, the worse broadcast radio sounds, because all kinds of artifacts 
are revealed. And it's not just FM, which still CAN sound very very good. IBOC 
or any grossly data-reduced system plays to a rather low common denominator, 
welding into place a level of quality that no receiver, no matter how 
expensive, can improve upon because it is never transmitted in the first place.

I'm not talking about content, or what the other content providers are doing. 
That's a whole different discussion.?I'm talking about the relative technical 
status of OUR delivery system. We have long ago let slip any hold on the 
title "state of the art." How it happened, and who to blame is yet another 
discussion. I'll let someone else point the fingers.

Maybe, "adequate" or "entertainment-quality" audio is what we're destined to 
provide for the future. So be it. I have no illusions. I'll do the best I can 
within those confines, working to offer the best listening experience I can. I 
think most of us want to.

But I sure wish there was a way to work toward bringing at least some of the 
OLD paradigm to the listening experience, where, if you wanted to and could 
afford it, you could turn on a RADIO to hear the reference, the best quality 
audio available to the consumer.

Kind Regards!
David P. Reaves, III
TransLanTech Sound, LLC
Home of the Award-winning "Ariane Sequel" Digital Audio Leveler


On?Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:25:32 -0700,?"wfifeng at aol.com" <reader at oldradio.com>
?wrote:
<<
In a message dated 10/20/2005 9:33:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Robertm at broadcast.net writes:


Robert Orban wrote:

At this point in time, Eureka 147 is a 15-year-old, dated technology.
Bob Orban

?And has few listeners because the general public could care less about
digital radio.


Right... we keep coming back to that "What's in it for me?" thing, don't we?

Why should someone fork over $300 for the "digital" version, when the $30
analog will give them the same programming, news, weather, sports,?
music, talk,
etc... and wake them up (and/or go with them to work) in the morning?

Someone else mentioned how when we were kids, we loved out little $5
"Flavoradios" with their 2" speakers. Then we loved our little?
"Spark-o-Matic" stereo
systems with the pressboard speakers that had 3" drivers in them. This is the
age-group that's listening to the 64Kbps MP3's on their earbuds & ipods. This
is the marketplace that so many advertisers are fawning over... and these are
the consumers who are asking "What's in it for me?"

Willie...
>>

_______________________________________________
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/