[BC] Sangean HD component tuner and Infusion portable Internet radio

[Robert Meuser]

Big yawn. What is your  point?


Dana Puopolo wrote:

>Bob,
>
>I used to be CE of a beautiful music station with an 18 share. We did not have
>to run the processing "wide open". We used an Optimod 8000A with a Compellor
>in front of it set for a minumum of processing. We used a composite STL with a
>MSI clipper set only to get overshoots in the STL. Every piece of equipment
>was tweaked for the ultimate possible quality. We probably had the first 100%
>transformerless radio station in the country. Paul Temple, Grady Moates and
>myself all made sure that EVERYTHING was always 100% "on spec". The reason we
>used any processing at all was because in cars we needed our average
>modulation to be high enough to overcome road noise. 
>
>We were perhaps 3 db less loud then the loudest station on the dial there,
>WPRO-FM. 3 measly db. Pro-FM NEVER 'jumped' out at you when switching between
>stations. They were louder, but square waves always are (they were proud of
>the fact that they cranked the level into the safety clippers on their 8100 up
>3 db). They sounded like CRUD, had less then HALF our numbers, and while their
>cume was good, their AQH sucked!
>
>The notion that someone should take a medium that has perhaps 80 db of dynamic
>range and compress and limit it until is runs within a couple db of the
>CRUSHED main channel is preposterous! Why bother HAVING all that range if
>you're not going to take some advantage of it?  The one GOOD thing I've heard
>from FM HD is the lack of noise. To me at least, peak limting (and clipping)
>does the most damage to audio of anything. Or do people buy 100 watt per
>channel amps for nothing? TRANSIENTS perhaps more then anything are what adds
>to the realism of music!
>
>Yes, cutting peak limiting back from perhaps 6-10 db to five will make things
>have more 'punch'. BUT...eliminating it all together will make it even
>punchier! Not to mention that conceptual coding algorithyms work best with
>uncompressed audio as their source.
>
>Now, I understand how look ahead limiting works - and it's a good invention
>and innovation...BUT just like any good thing, it can be overused. 5 db of any
>limiting in a medium with a wide dymanic range like HD is about 4 db too
>much!
>
>The bottom line is this: I have heard all the HD stations in three major
>markets at length (NYC, Philadelphia and Boston). With a few standout
>exceptions, most HD audio sounds unimpressive. Why? BECAUSE of the
>processing!!  There's no "WOW!" factor!
>
>AND...In the case of the standout stations, EVERY ONE is a few db softer then
>their analog main channels. Secondaries too. I'm talking about audio that
>sounds noticeably BETTER then the main analog channel. Who cares if I have to
>turn the radio up a bit? I'd do it anyway, because the music DRAWS ME IN when
>it sounds really good, instead of pushing me away, as crushed, clipped analog
>FM does.
>
>If we are going to claim 'CD like audio' for HD FM radio, we'd better deliver
>- and the crushed, limited MESS I hear on most stations just doesn't cut it!
>
>-D
>
> 
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:15:31 PM EST
>From: Robert Orban <rorban at earthlink.net>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] Sangean HD component tuner and Infusion	portable	Internet
>radio
>
>At 04:50 PM 12/20/2006, Dana Puopolo wrote:
>  
>
>>Bob,
>>
>>Why would anyone employ peak limiting or any kind of aggressive processing
>>    
>>
>on
>  
>
>>HD? It makes absolutely no sense! Run the gain down 8-10 db and keep the
>>    
>>
>peak
>  
>
>>limiting OFF!
>>    
>>
>
>If you did this on the HD1 channel, the crossfade between the analog and 
>digital channels would cause the digital channel loudness to drop 
>dramatically and annoyingly and the analog channel to blast at the listener 
>who had just readjusted her volume control for the digital channel.
>
>If you're talking about an HD2 channel, maintaining approximate loudness 
>parity between the HD1 and HD2 channels avoids annoying volume changes when 
>the consumer switches between channels. Having a station "blast" at you is 
>particularly annoying. We know this from experience with television, where 
>commercials that are significantly louder than program material have 
>generated spontaneous consumer complaints to the FCC as early as the 1950s. 
>"Joe Sixpack" prefers comfortably consistent program loudness and does 
>*not* want to have to constantly fiddle with his volume control.
>
>Fortunately, the amount of digital-channel peak limiting required to 
>maintain parity between the analog and digital channels is not very large. 
>If you use a good look-ahead technology, you will hear no overt artifacts 
>and only the slightest loss of transient punch compared to the source. To 
>put this in perspective, the amount of digital channel peak limiting 
>required to achieve analog/digital loudness parity is significantly less 
>than the amount of peak limiting routinely applied to today's CD releases 
>in mastering.
>
>Bob Orban 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
>Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More! 
>www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
>Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More! 
>www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>  
>