[BC] Balancing processing from analog to digital

[padrino]

Dana,

I'm sensing that this thread is moving to the "processing vs no
processing" debate. Guess the question becomes, how much processing is too
much? Conventional FM will alwasys be too much, so to speak, due to
preemphasis. I'll bet that most folks do not realize that when they think
they're doing small amounts of processing on FM, they're still into "it"
more than they'd image, all because of the 17dB boost at 15kHz (75?s) here
in the USA, and 13dB (50?s) elsewhere. So, if you want to talk about
transients and punch, FM-Stereo basically offers an illusion to it. :)

What you desire, might play better on an HD-2 channel, at a higher
bitrate, like 48kbps, where that audio stream is not simulcasting the main
signal.

Sadly, while the discussion references the sound of CD audio, I'm sure
you've had a look at the dynamic range of those during the last 5+ years.
The processing done in mastering is almost on par with FM-Stereo.

An idea to ponder here, would be to employ META data with HD Radio. Then,
the consumer can choose the type of listening environment they desire.

-Frank Foti

Broadcasters' Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net> writes:
 >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!
 >