[BC] Doing remotes in 2007

[Mike McCarthy]

There is a balance which can be found using both.

We have in the past used narrow band Marti TX's in certain applications to 
give the remote the "real sound" of a remote.  In others, we use the 50Khz 
channels for something better sounding. In the former, just turn up the 
fader a few dB.

2-way can be made to sound good as well. But it takes work and an 
experienced tech who KNOWS that gear upside down and backwards to make it 
happen and not sound like crap.

As others have mentioned, the use of DBX was a HUGE step up for the Marti 
system.  At one station we used it, it added 10 miles to the usable 
distance of the remotes.  We found with only 1-2 dB of Marti compression 
(just tickling the limiter), the audio sounded quite impressive at 
distances which would otherwise be marred by constant hiss or other 
artifacts.  Close in, it sounded really good.  Of course, hammering the 
limiter in the Marti was equally bad too.  DBX failed horribly if the 
limiter was hit too hard.

MM



At 11:22 AM 4/5/2007 -0400, Dana  Puopolo wrote
>I'[ve seen this same thing happen with traffic reports. Four Boston stations
>used to share a helicopter for traffic reports. Three of us used 2 way radios,
>but one (3 letter call) had to sound better, so they put in a full blown UHF
>Marti system. Problem was, they didn't sound like they were in a helicopter
>any more-and it cost them credibility with listeners who thought they were
>being deceived. They're back to the 2 way again.
>
>-D
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received:
>From: Barry Mishkind <barry at oldradio.com>
>To: Broadcasters' Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] Doing remotes in 2007
>
>
>   Goran,
>          It is interesting to me to see this sort of comment.
>
>          Of course, there are many different types of "remote"
>          broadcasts, from drop-ins from the local car dealer to
>          a symphony hall concert.
>
>          However, in many cases, there is a level of obsession that
>          goes beyond the level of balance.
>
>          As has often been noted here, CONTENT is usually more
>          important to the listener than the absolute purity of sound.
>
>          In fact, I've had more than one PD agree that if the
>          "marti shot" is too good, then how does the listener
>          know there really is a remote going on?
>
>          Now, I do *not* advocate the bare cell phone remote.
>          They almost always sound horrid. In fact, I know
>          of some cancellations caused by lazy staff who would
>          rather not set up the remote gear, but use the cell
>          phone since "it was only two breaks"
>
>          Just like a sports broadcast usually seeks to ADD
>          crowd noise instead of having the relative silence
>          of the booth back the play by play, many remotes
>          actually "benefit" from the audio being something
>          less than perfect.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>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