[BC] Oh No another automation comparison question

[Rich Wood]

------ At 11:07 PM 9/13/2006, JYRussell at academicplanet.com wrote: -------

>If you grew up in radio with tapes and 45's and carts... you remember how
>there is a bit of 'something' to the sound created by a real human starting
>and stopping elements and spots and songs and that automation still doesn't
>do without extraordinary amounts of pre-planning...  Being able to 'slip
>cue' a song to a certain point, or time a pre-recorded element to an exact
>spot, adds to the 'live' feeling, and, not all autmation systems will allow
>it in real time, doubly so with the older one-in / one-out soundcards, or -
>ugh - SoundBlasters.

Most of what you mention causes listeners to complain. In many 
formats talking up to a post will get complaints. "Shut up and play 
the music" is the normal response. Even the simplest audio editor 
will allow you to edit to a point with far more accuracy than a human 
with vinyl, let alone a CD. Very few digital systems I've seen won't 
allow you to backtime/deadroll a cut to end at a very specific time. 
Some will even let you compress, without changing pitch, a song to 
meet that time constraint, within a reasonable latitude. At WOR we 
had an Internet music format run on an Enco system. I've dealt with 
automation since the days of big iron. The ease with which a cut 
could be coded to start, stop, trimmed, backtimed - you name it - was 
amazing. Cut information can be included to feed an Internet display, 
IBUZ, RDS or anything that would accept an ASCII stream. The company 
would program whatever you needed to make that stream useful.

A person with an intimate understanding of automation can make a 
station sound every bit as live as the human jock who forgets to 
start the backtimed/deadrolled cut. To make a voicetracked format 
sound live takes a great deal of talent and the ability to hear a 
song in his or her head if the system doesn't have the ability to 
play intros and outros while cutting the tracks.

>   with a bit more 'horsepower' in your automation rig, though, you *can*
>play everything from the format within the exact time frame, and the exact
>manner needed by the consultants and PD and *still* not sound repetitive.

You're confusing automation that sequences events with scheduling 
systems. Digital audio systems don't schedule. They sequence. 
Selector schedules music and traffic systems like Marketron schedule 
spots and non-music elements.

>Being 'an announcer' is what works best with most automations systms,
>though.   they are set up to play the stuff out while leaving you places to
>talk.  Period.

No. Being a talent works best with automation. Automation is a 
versatile tool. What you do with it and how well is entirely up to 
you and your staff. Garbage in. Garbage out. Come to think of it, 
that works for "live" radio, too.

>Don't expect 'Audacity', for example, to be a great on-air-live use program.
>Sure it *can* edit sounds, but it's a bit - ah... - rudimentary. - for "real
>radio".

No. It works as well for "real radio" as any other editor. It's an 
editor. That's all.

>   Playing 4 or 6 different soundfiles out of three or 4 soundcards while
>hold the song (or whatever) you backtimed into a network... really 'jazzing
>up' what you've go on the air... is a bit beyond many of the less expensive
>software - they still tend to choke.  Not enough inputs, or outputs, etc.
>for 'real radio'.  Many softwares expect you to do your entire program out
>of ONE POT.   Is that real radio??
>
>   Be creative on the air.

A poor performer blames his tools. Read recording magazines like Mix, 
ProSound News, TapeOp and EQ. You'll discover amazing things done 
with minimal tools. Remember, much of the music we revere so much was 
recorded in places with egg cartons on the walls. "Real Radio" is 
whatever comes out of the speaker. No listener cares how it got 
there. "Wow! Did you hear how he slip-cued that song" is rarely heard 
in our nation's cars.

Rich


Rich Wood
Rich Wood Multimedia
Phone: 413-454-3258