[BC] Could our concept of audio be all wrong?

[Jeff Johnson]

I am proud to say that our station, especially with our new Orban 8500 and 
Nautel TX gear, is one of the best sounding on the 'dial'. I have the 
processing set to 'Soft Jazz' unmodified, and we sound sweet. A number of 
our jocks still play vinyl on occasion. We do very well considering our 
modest, directional C3 signal. Our web stream is processed through the 
semi-retired 8100.

I can no longer listen to the 'oldies' stations, as their processing sounds 
worse than a worn out 45 on a jukebox. Yes, I remember that - complete with 
wow from elongated holes and, occasionally, one-too-many. Some memories are 
NOT golden!

Harsh MP3 audio seems now the norm. I recall when hi-fi became the rage in 
the mid-50s. It was also considered bright and harsh compared to the 
muffled sound of AM radios and phonographs with little above ~4 kcps. It 
can be argued that early phono cartridges were harsh, especially the 
crystal variety. When cartridges were improved with compliant suspensions 
(remember the compliance, tracking and geometry wars??) and elliptical 
styli, and amps were tubed but low noise and linear, audio sounded good. 
Driving the likes of AR and KLH speakers, hi-fi had arrived.

As mentioned here time and again, we need to re-calibrate our ears with 
real music - nothing electronic. The CSO (Cincinnati Symphony) has been 
playing Bartok recently. Now we are talking music ......

Jeff.Johnson at rfproof.com
WNKU

>Over several years, my wife was exposed to good quality audio both on my 
>home system and the radio stations I had prior to 1989.  She can now pick 
>out bad audio almost faster that I can.  She doesn't have the "ear" to 
>know what compression/limiting/excessive EQ is, but she knows what sounds 
>good and bad.  And, she won't listen to music radio at all.
>
>Jim Graham
>
>jgprods at bellsouth.net