[BC] BC] Wow, I wonder if you feel the same way about AM?

[Broadcast List USER]

My  Libertarian (both big L and small l -- I am small l) friends and I  
often joke, "There ought to be a law."  Of course, no one is serious,  
and it is funny when people overhear us and agree.  This has happened  
frequently at Front Sight, a firearms training facility outside Las  
Vegas.  We make the joke, and people agree as they don't understand it  
is a joke.

Same for fixing broadcast audio by passing a law.  It cannot and won't  
happen.  First, there is the old, "Let the Marketplace decide" group.   
Of course, they are right.

However, that is how it was in England.  The government, through a  
group I believe is called the IBC, runs the transmitters, including  
the audio processing.  The winner of the bid for the local stations  
would provide stereo audio to the IBC, who would process it and  
broadcast it.  When I was there, FM was getting the most attention, as  
most people were satisfied with the AM processing, which was quite  
nice.  The FMs were getting into "pre-processing" which was making  
some people unhappy.  The pirates, on the other hand, were responsible  
for everything.

Capitol FM was under 3 kW.  In Central London there was a pirate on a  
tall high rise, and ran a 10 kW transmitter into a six bay antenna.   
That is roughly 25 kW ERP, so over 10 times more power than Capitol  
FM.  They were in downtown as opposed to near, so the signal was  
astounding.  Since they controlled everything, they were quite heavily  
processed, though not nearly to the extend US stations were.  The  
legal independents tried to compete by pre-processing.  Anyway,  
everything was quite tame by US standards.

I have to admit, I have engineered some darned loud stations.  Loud  
enough that people tried to find out what equipment we were using all  
the time.  I had fun by having some equipment in the rack that was not  
used, with the real stuff hidden away.  A big dog on this list was  
once found under my stand-up console figuring out my mic processing.   
I never let him forget it as the female DJ he was found between the  
knees of was a real dog -- both fat and ugly.  Hey, I'm fat, but...

I was very loud, but relatively clean.  OK, not really clean, but  
pretty clean.  I tried to avoid clipping, and really avoided all but  
overshoot control by composite clipping, which is evil.  I even built  
my own composite clippers that removed the pilot, clipped, and  
reinserted the pilot as clipping the pilot is evil.

Anyway, I CONSTANTLY fought with PDs over processing.  I would tell  
them, in as respectful way I could, that, yes clipping would make the  
station MUCH louder, but drive women away.  They would, of course, say  
that it didn't sound bad to them.  I explained that decades of loud  
headphones had ruined their high frequency hearing, and that some men  
in the audience shared that because of rock music, hot rods,  
carpentry, or other loud persuits, but that the WOMEN didn't suffer  
high frequency loss.  Additionally, women have enhanced high frequency  
hearing through evolution because they need to hear babies crying.   
This usually worked.

When it didn't, I would give them a list of audiologists.  I would  
tell them that (1), I would do anything they want, as my job didn't  
depend on ratings.  If they want the station to sound like crap, and  
drive women away, I would do it for them.  And, (2) I strongly suggest  
they have their ears checked first, before changing the sound, so they  
know what they are working with.  If they came out with no high  
frequency hearing loss, they could reliably tell when the processing  
had gone too far.  As far as I know, not one ever had their ears  
checked.  I believe this was because they already knew they suffered  
from hearing damage.

On the other hand, in the 80s, we had a combined AES/SBE meeting about  
audio processing.  The first floor meeting room at the NAB was  
standing room only.  The main guy for FM was CE for the worst sounding  
FM in the DC market.  Yet, he was the expert.

The radio guys got it, and we really didn't hear any stupid comments  
or questions out of them.  The AUDIOPHILES were quite a different group.

The best question was, "Why does the music on the radio sound so much  
better than the same record on my very expensive stereo system?  How  
can I get the same records you guys play on the radio?"

I wanted to give him the polystyrene pressings we had, that would cue  
burn before you could dub them to cart.  It just showed that the  
general public doesn't get it.  Compressed, with extra reverb added is  
really nice! <g>

--chip

On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:48 PM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> Message: 16
> From: Jeff Glass <Xmitters at aol.com>
>
> Chip:
>
> Most of our AM quality problems here are because of the receivers.  
> This fact is what gave Jeff Littlejohn the idea about limiting  
> transmit audio to 5 kHz.
>
> The other significant factors have to do with the audio processing  
> and the all too common loudness wars. It would matter very little if  
> we had decent receivers when the processing is often dictated by  
> egomaniacs. Realistically, I don't think the general public cares  
> one way or the other about audio quality. That fact is largely the  
> reason that the processing feud between Engineering and Programming  
> has been going on for so long. Neither side has COMPELLING evidence  
> against the other.
>
> Fortunately, processing feuds don't go on in public radio. If they  
> do, it's certainly not the norm. It is not the norm where I work.
>
> I don't know what the solution is. Maybe we need some rules passed  
> by the FCC that mandates that the processing not materially change  
> the sonic qualities of the programming. Or, maybe ASCAP/BMI needs to  
> step in and demand that their performances not be marred by the  
> transmission process. IOW, PROGRAM sounds just like AIR.
>
> You and I know this will never happen for hundreds of reasons. If  
> London radio sounds as you describe, I would bet a lot of $$$ that  
> the processing is dictated by Engineering, and not by the  
> Programming department. That's what we need here in this country. As  
> long as we keep convincing ourselves that better audio will save  
> radio, we need to change our attitude about on-air quality, and not  
> bother with Digital until the consumers demand it, which they, quite  
> likely, will not.
>
> Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot cheaper to have a nationwide drive  
> for transparent audio processing with an on-air campaign about "the  
> new 21st century sound of radio"? If the public responds, then  
> design an even higher quality radio system using Digital. Neither  
> will happen..Instead, we would rather roll out an expensive  
> technology rather than improving on what we have. That way if there  
> is a dismal failure, we can blame the new technology instead of  
> ourselves.
>
> Sad to say that we will continue to lose audience in either case,  
> because of Broadcasting's apparent refusal to listen to the  
> consumer, or to even ask the consumers what they want.
>
> I have asked membership of this forum several times to produce some  
> audience research that describes what the consumer wants. That  
> request goes unanswered. I can only conclude that their IS NO market  
> research. That's a problem.
>
> Jeff Glass
>

> In a message dated 2/2/2010 8:00:42 AM Central Standard Time, broadcast-request at radiolists.net 
>  writes:
>
>> The AMs on London sound like FM.  They have great bandwidth, transmit
>> very high frequency audio, and sound very clean.
>> [...]
>> --chip