I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma.
We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard
to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Dustin Malpass wrote:
====================
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma.** FFS explain *properly* what you are really intending to do.
We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard
to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Saying "modern radio sound " has no meaning at all.
.... Phil
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma.** FFS explain *properly* what you are really intending to do.
We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard
to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Saying "modern radio sound " has no meaning at all.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have a collection of music compiled into sort of a fake radio station
and I'm trying to get it to sound more authentic to how an actual radio station would process it.
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 7:20:33 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:effects. As of now I've tried many different combinations, and none have really made it feel "right". I was hoping that someone with some experience in that area could drop a few ideas that would help really bring it together.
Dustin Malpass wrote:
====================
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma.** FFS explain *properly* what you are really intending to do.
We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard
to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Saying "modern radio sound " has no meaning at all.
.... Phil
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have a collection of music compiled into sort of a fake radio station and I'm trying to get it to sound more authentic to how an actual radio station would process it. Ideally with a compressor or other similar
Dustin Malpass wrote:
=================
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma.** FFS explain *properly* what you are really intending to do.
We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard
to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
** Really ??Saying "modern radio sound " has no meaning at all.I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have a collection of music compiled into sort of a fake radio station
and I'm trying to get it to sound more authentic to how an actual radio station would process it.
Some radio stations use very little processing on recordings, particularly FM ones with Jazz or classical music.
Lots of pop music is already hard compressed so it cannot be done any more. Known as " hypercompression " .
I doubt you have a clue what you a talking about.
Please prove me wrong.
..... Phil
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma.** FFS explain *properly* what you are really intending to do.
We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard
to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Saying "modern radio sound " has no meaning at all.I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have a collection of music compiled into sort of a fake radio station
and I'm trying to get it to sound more authentic to how an actual radio station would process it.
** Really ??
Some radio stations use very little processing on recordings, particularly FM ones with Jazz or classical music.
Lots of pop music is already hard compressed so it cannot be done any more. Known as " hypercompression " .
I doubt you have a clue what you a talking about.
Please prove me wrong.
If I was experienced with this, I wouldn't be asking for advice on how to do it.
On 5/09/2021 3:00 pm, Dustin Malpass wrote:similar effects. As of now I've tried many different combinations, and none have really made it feel "right". I was hoping that someone with some experience in that area could drop a few ideas that would help really bring it together.
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 7:20:33 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
Dustin Malpass wrote:
====================
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma.** FFS explain *properly* what you are really intending to do.
We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard
to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Saying "modern radio sound " has no meaning at all.
.... Phil
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have a collection of music compiled into sort of a fake radio station and I'm trying to get it to sound more authentic to how an actual radio station would process it. Ideally with a compressor or other
I guess you are wanting to emulate the tonal and dynamic effects of commonly-used devices such as the Optimod.
https://www.orban.com/optimodfm-8700i
Here is somebody's attempt.
https://www.stereotool.com/
geoff
I notice on the radio that songs that normally sound very different seem to=
blend together a lot better but I've yet to get a similar sound from exper=
imenting with familiar effects
On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 3:23:29 AM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
Dustin Malpass wrote:
=================
** Really ??I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have a collection of music compiled into sort of a fake radio station
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma.
We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard
to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated! >> > > ** FFS explain *properly* what you are really intending to do.
Saying "modern radio sound " has no meaning at all.
and I'm trying to get it to sound more authentic to how an actual radio station would process it.
Some radio stations use very little processing on recordings, particularly FM ones with Jazz or classical music.
Lots of pop music is already hard compressed so it cannot be done any more. >> Known as " hypercompression " .
I doubt you have a clue what you a talking about.
Please prove me wrong.
..... Phil
If I was experienced with this, I wouldn't be asking for advice on how to do it.
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma. We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Every radio station I have ever seen claims that they all sound different
than everyone else on the dial and they have their own trademark sound.
If if were me, I'd use an RE-20 on the DJ,
Some radio stations use very little processing on recordings, particularly FM ones with Jazz or classical music.
Lots of pop music is already hard compressed so it cannot be done any more.
Known as " hypercompression " .
I doubt you have a clue what you a talking about.
Please prove me wrong.
You just need to understand how Phil works.
If you know less than him you are a clueless idiot.
If you know more ..
Dustin Malpass <dusted...@gmail.com> wrote:_______
I notice on the radio that songs that normally sound very different seem to=
blend together a lot better but I've yet to get a similar sound from exper=
imenting with familiar effects
The Orban won't do that. That's the consequence of multiband compression. Split the signal up into third-octave bands, compress each one differently (maybe with the same time constants, maybe with different time constants depending on your program director), then adjust the relative levels of
each of the bands until your spectral balance sounds right.
Now every song you put into the system comes out with the exact same
spectral balance. It's kind of horrifying, really, when you think about it. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Don Pearce aka "Clueless Idiot" wrote: >--------------------------------------------------------
Some radio stations use very little processing on recordings, particularly FM ones with Jazz or classical music.
Lots of pop music is already hard compressed so it cannot be done any more.
Known as " hypercompression " .
I doubt you have a clue what you a talking about.
Please prove me wrong.
You just need to understand how Phil works.
** LOL - as if you have even the tiniest idea.
If you know less than him you are a clueless idiot.
** Nah, only if you post bullshit over and over.
If you know more ..
** Leaves you right out - pommy fuckhead.
Still haven't worked out why the apparent ringing frequency of an overshoot does not appear in the spectrum??
Big mystery ?
....... Phil
Dustin Malpass <dusted...@gmail.com> wrote:
I notice on the radio that songs that normally sound very different seem to=
blend together a lot better but I've yet to get a similar sound from exper=
imenting with familiar effects
The Orban won't do that. That's the consequence of multiband compression. Split the signal up into third-octave bands, compress each one differently (maybe with the same time constants, maybe with different time constants depending on your program director), then adjust the relative levels of
each of the bands until your spectral balance sounds right.
Now every song you put into the system comes out with the exact same
spectral balance. It's kind of horrifying, really, when you think about it. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
** Leaves you right out - pommy fuckhead.
Still haven't worked out why the apparent ringing frequency of an overshoot does not appear in the spectrum??
Big mystery ?
....... Phil
See what I mean? Even when confronted by a measurement
The Orban won't do that. That's the consequence of multiband compression. Split the signal up into third-octave bands, compress each one differently (maybe with the same time constants, maybe with different time constants depending on your program director), then adjust the relative levels of
each of the bands until your spectral balance sounds right.
Now every song you put into the system comes out with the exact same
spectral balance. It's kind of horrifying, really, when you think about it.
On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:24:30 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Now every song you put into the system comes out with the exact same
spectral balance. It's kind of horrifying, really, when you think about it.
And didn't that sort of radio 'Franken-processing' influence, in part, >the way music has been produced/mastered since the late 1990s?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
If if were me, I'd use an RE-20 on the DJ,
** Oh - so now is the vocal mic ?
Not what the OP said.
Chris K-Man <thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:_______
On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:24:30 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Now every song you put into the system comes out with the exact same
spectral balance. It's kind of horrifying, really, when you think about it.
And didn't that sort of radio 'Franken-processing' influence, in part,Not really, if anything it's the other way around. The whole point of the multiband processing is to make records that were all produced and mastered differently all sound the same. If they all sounded the same in the first place, there would be no need for it.
the way music has been produced/mastered since the late 1990s?
You'd think that would make producers do something more extreme to stand
out, but it doesn't seem to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Dustin Malpass <dusted...@gmail.com> wrote:
I notice on the radio that songs that normally sound very different seem to=
blend together a lot better but I've yet to get a similar sound from exper=
imenting with familiar effects
The Orban won't do that. That's the consequence of multiband compression. Split the signal up into third-octave bands, compress each one differently (maybe with the same time constants, maybe with different time constants depending on your program director), then adjust the relative levels of
each of the bands until your spectral balance sounds right.
Now every song you put into the system comes out with the exact same
spectral balance. It's kind of horrifying, really, when you think about it. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Branigan's new record, the
album ultimately failed, big time, in meeting the bar set by her
two previous releases.
Chris K-Man <thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:_________
On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:24:30 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Now every song you put into the system comes out with the exact same
spectral balance. It's kind of horrifying, really, when you think about it.
And didn't that sort of radio 'Franken-processing' influence, in part,Not really, if anything it's the other way around. The whole point of the multiband processing is to make records that were all produced and mastered differently all sound the same. If they all sounded the same in the first place, there would be no need for it.
the way music has been produced/mastered since the late 1990s?
You'd think that would make producers do something more extreme to stand
out, but it doesn't seem to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey wrote:
================
The Orban won't do that. That's the consequence of multiband compression.
Split the signal up into third-octave bands, compress each one differently >> (maybe with the same time constants, maybe with different time constants
depending on your program director), then adjust the relative levels of
each of the bands until your spectral balance sounds right.
** Sounds a heck of a lot like hyper-compression.
It is sort of, but the main idea isn't just loudness, the idea is to get every song into the same basic spectral envelope for uniformity. The added loudness is a free bonus (and it's not very much, but you take what you can get in the radio world).
** Sounds a heck of a lot like hyper-compression.
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma. We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
Dustin
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:47:02 PM UTC-4, Dustin wrote:processing? Is it not double processed?
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma. We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
Dustin
OK, Carly Simon was entrained to appreciate the Z100 processing chain. Clearly, not every song sounds like that in its natural mastered state. What does a song sound like if it's pre-processed to sound like that already and then goes through the Z100
I recall a conversation with a DC radio friend when I was at 98Rock in Baltimore. He said he'd been in a loudness war with other DC stations and after their last (hopefully) triumphant tweek, he switched to us and liked us better. What did we have infront of our optimod!!!???? I told him it was a piece of wire. IOW, nothing. You can chase your tail in that race and drive yourself crazy.
OTOH, we used to get calls at 98Rock from listeners who asked what LP we would be playing at midnight. When I asked one of them why they didn't just go and buy the LP, he said, "Because I like the way it sounds on the air better."_______
The End
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:26:56 AM UTC-4, Ty wrote:processing? Is it not double processed?
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:47:02 PM UTC-4, Dustin wrote:
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma. We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
Dustin
OK, Carly Simon was entrained to appreciate the Z100 processing chain. Clearly, not every song sounds like that in its natural mastered state. What does a song sound like if it's pre-processed to sound like that already and then goes through the Z100
front of our optimod!!!???? I told him it was a piece of wire. IOW, nothing. You can chase your tail in that race and drive yourself crazy.
I recall a conversation with a DC radio friend when I was at 98Rock in Baltimore. He said he'd been in a loudness war with other DC stations and after their last (hopefully) triumphant tweek, he switched to us and liked us better. What did we have in
_______
OTOH, we used to get calls at 98Rock from listeners who asked what LP we would be playing at midnight. When I asked one of them why they didn't just go and buy the LP, he said, "Because I like the way it sounds on the air better."
The End
There you go, Scott D!
So commercial radio, unwittingly perhaps, played an early, partial role
in what would be referred to by around 2000 as the "loudness war".
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their
audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
Originally, that would just involve the RIAA phono curve equivalent of (HF only) pre-emphasis, and de-emph at the tuner end, plus, modest amounts of peak-limiting and dynamic compression, maybe up to
a 1.5:1.0 ratio?
Now there's tons of EQ, layers of multi-band, and gosh knows how much limiting! AAnd of course at can all be done in one or two rack-mounts,
such as an Optimod, or whatever brand is the modern equivalent.
Thes stations are all in a race to the bottom of hell trying to achieve that
'ratings-worthy' sound! The ONLY sound that should matter is the sound of
what they play!
For Carly Simon, or anyone, to set the bar for their album sound so low
is beyond shameful, but of course now most albums since 2000 sound that way.
Yes, I do own a Justin Bieber CD, and one by Adele. And you know what?
There is less of a difference between how those two sound on the radio vs
when I play their CDs, vs when I hear 'Thriller' or 'Dark Side Of The Moon'
on the radio and then toss in the original issue CDs of those albums. Sad!
On 11/09/2021 6:17 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally
to get their
audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
No, to make an 'impact' on listeners, a uniform level so that constant adjustments are not required by the listener for different songs/albums/artists, and cater to higher-noise environments
environments like in offices/shops/automobiles.
On 11/09/2021 03:40, geoff wrote:
On 11/09/2021 6:17 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally
to get their
audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
No, to make an 'impact' on listeners, a uniform level so that constant adjustments are not required by the listener for different songs/albums/artists, and cater to higher-noise environments
environments like in offices/shops/automobiles.
It also increases their usable service area noticeably, by improving the
SNR round the edges, getting them more listeners on the fringes. More listeners means they can charge more for their adverts...
The Orban unit that most of them seem to use can also tailor the
frequency response to give each station a "signature" sound, (It is a
multi band compressor/ limiter) so that all the stuff they play has more
or less the same frequency content, so that you *know* you are listening
to that station.
--_______
Tciao for Now!
John.
On 11/09/2021 6:17 am, Chris K-Man wrote:Z100 processing? Is it not double processed?
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:26:56 AM UTC-4, Ty wrote:
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:47:02 PM UTC-4, Dustin wrote:
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma. We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
Dustin
OK, Carly Simon was entrained to appreciate the Z100 processing chain. Clearly, not every song sounds like that in its natural mastered state. What does a song sound like if it's pre-processed to sound like that already and then goes through the
in front of our optimod!!!???? I told him it was a piece of wire. IOW, nothing. You can chase your tail in that race and drive yourself crazy.
I recall a conversation with a DC radio friend when I was at 98Rock in Baltimore. He said he'd been in a loudness war with other DC stations and after their last (hopefully) triumphant tweek, he switched to us and liked us better. What did we have
__________________
OTOH, we used to get calls at 98Rock from listeners who asked what LP we would be playing at midnight. When I asked one of them why they didn't just go and buy the LP, he said, "Because I like the way it sounds on the air better."
The End
There you go, Scott D!
So commercial radio, unwittingly perhaps, played an early, partial roleNo. hyper-compression and the 'loudness war' is some more than that.
in what would be referred to by around 2000 as the "loudness war".
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.No, to make an 'impact' on listeners, a uniform level so that constant adjustments are not required by the listener for different songs/albums/artists, and cater to higher-noise environments
environments like in offices/shops/automobiles.
Originally, that would just involve the RIAA phono curve equivalent of
(HF only) pre-emphasis, and de-emph at the tuner end, plus, modest
amounts of peak-limiting and dynamic compression, maybe up to
a 1.5:1.0 ratio?
Now there's tons of EQ, layers of multi-band, and gosh knows howYour favorite hyper-compression and loudness-wars happen before the
much limiting! AAnd of course at can all be done in one or two rack-mounts,
such as an Optimod, or whatever brand is the modern equivalent.
music even gets to a radio station.
Thes stations are all in a race to the bottom of hell trying to achieve thatThat is their decision. Sadly.
'ratings-worthy' sound! The ONLY sound that should matter is the sound of what they play!
For Carly Simon, or anyone, to set the bar for their album sound so low
is beyond shameful, but of course now most albums since 2000 sound
that way.
Yes, I do own a Justin Bieber CD, and one by Adele. And you know what?
There is less of a difference between how those two sound on the radio vs when I play their CDs, vs when I hear 'Thriller' or 'Dark Side Of The Moon'Yes, there is less to compress on those newer albums, so the sound won't
on the radio and then toss in the original issue CDs of those albums. Sad!
be so different. But Justin Bieber - surely you are kidding ?
geoff
On 11/09/2021 12:01, Chris K-Man wrote:_____
_______
If I were a station owner/operator, I'd make sure I had enough TX power
in the first place, so any processing I had to do would be for just
that - getting the signal up out of the grass.
The ERP and antenna input power are limited by your licence terms, but
even ignoring that, the more compressed the signal is, the further out
your fringes are before the signal becomes unusable, so the more
listeners you can get. For non-commercial stations such as the BBC, the bigger the area you can cover with a generally acceptable audio quality
at a given power, the fewer transmitters you need, so the cheaper it is
to run the service. Don't forget, most people do not listen in anywhere
near ideal conditions, so a signal with a reduced dynamic range sounds
better than a program where the levels often drop down below the
background noise in your listening location.
With DAB, all that matters as far as sound quality in the service area
goes is the bitrate and the error correction you use, and they save
money by reducing the bitrate while making the error correction more
robust, though as they also have an FM presence in most cases, they use
the same equalised and compressed feed that goes into the FM transmitter
to drive the DAB feed both the save money and give the listener the same experience no matter how they listen. The dynamically compressed feed
makes a low bit rate signal easier to listen to as well.
Sound quality is a secondary issue for most commercial radio stations,
as the accountants get to tell the engineering and production staff what
to do.
If you were a station owner, you would do the same as everyone else, as
it's the only way to earn enough to pay the bills.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Then explain why the NPRs, Jazz, and Classicals all sound
relatively good, open? And they're still on the air.
If I were a station owner/operator, I'd make sure I had enough TX power
in the first place, so any processing I had to do would be for just
that - getting the signal up out of the grass.
On 11/09/2021 12:45, Chris K-Man wrote:______
Then explain why the NPRs, Jazz, and Classicals all soundMaybe their listeners phone in and complain, instead of hiding behind a
relatively good, open? And they're still on the air.
fake name and a keyboard on usenet?
Our only nationally available commercial classical station in the UK has
a definite "signature sound".
This link might work for you, or it may not.
https://www.globalplayer.com/live/classicfm/uk/
We don't have specialist jazz stations as far as I know, just the
occasional programme on one of the mainstream ones.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 7:55:39 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 11/09/2021 12:45, Chris K-Man wrote:______
Then explain why the NPRs, Jazz, and Classicals all soundMaybe their listeners phone in and complain, instead of hiding behind a
relatively good, open? And they're still on the air.
fake name and a keyboard on usenet?
Our only nationally available commercial classical station in the UK has
a definite "signature sound".
This link might work for you, or it may not.
https://www.globalplayer.com/live/classicfm/uk/
We don't have specialist jazz stations as far as I know, just the
occasional programme on one of the mainstream ones.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Thanks - I can get that station now. It does advise that soon one will
have to have a login acct. to listen. Stupid!
As for the sound, what is streamed may, or may not, go through the same
processing chain as what leaves the transmitter tower.
So it's not an objective way for me, across the Pond, to judge.
increase coverage area. WEAM AM was something like 180 percent positive peaks. You couldn't exceed 100% on the negative peaks. This was OK with the FCC until maybe the 1970s. Then the FCC said no more than 125% on positive peaks. This measurably reducedAnd FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their
audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM. The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal. Back in the day, AM engineers used to use asymmetrical modulation to
Plate modulated AM transmitters were also favored over other AM modulation schemes in an effort to boost coverage area. Not all AM transmitters were designed for plate modulation.
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
coverage area. WEAM AM was something like 180 percent positive peaks. You couldn't exceed 100% on the negative peaks. This was OK with the FCC until maybe the 1970s. Then the FCC said no more than 125% on positive peaks. This measurably reduced theAnd FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their
audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM. The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal. Back in the day, AM engineers used to use asymmetrical modulation to increase
Plate modulated AM transmitters were also favored over other AM modulation schemes in an effort to boost coverage area. Not all AM transmitters were designed for plate modulation.
On 11/09/2021 18:20, Ty Ford wrote:increase coverage area. WEAM AM was something like 180 percent positive peaks. You couldn't exceed 100% on the negative peaks. This was OK with the FCC until maybe the 1970s. Then the FCC said no more than 125% on positive peaks. This measurably reduced
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their >> audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM. The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal. Back in the day, AM engineers used to use asymmetrical modulation to
______Plate modulated AM transmitters were also favored over other AM modulation schemes in an effort to boost coverage area. Not all AM transmitters were designed for plate modulation.
Seems it's older than I thought...
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM.
The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal.
The ERP and antenna input power are limited by your licence terms, but
even ignoring that, the more compressed the signal is, the further out
your fringes are before the signal becomes unusable, so the more
listeners you can get.
Don't forget, most people do not listen in anywhere
near ideal conditions, so a signal with a reduced dynamic range sounds
better than a program where the levels often drop down below the
background noise in your listening location.
Sound quality is a secondary issue for most commercial radio stations,
as the accountants get to tell the engineering and production staff what
to do.
If you were a station owner, you would do the same as everyone else, as
it's the only way to earn enough to pay the bills.
** Nope - the average power level of and AM or FM transmission does not change with modulation.
.... Phil
** Nope - the average power level of and AM or FM transmission does not change with modulation.
*** Nope, Phil. Sorry. You're incorrect.
Maintaining higher modulation levels for AM keeps a wider coverage area.
Ty Ford wrote:
============
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their >> > audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
** Doubtful.
I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM.
The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal.
** Nope - the average power level of and AM or FM transmission does not change with modulation.
The received s/n ratio depends on carrier power - but once the signal at the antenna is high enough s/n reaches a limit.
Heavy compression of the modulation benefits listeners in bad environments, vehicles, busy streets, workplaces and the like.
Those at home with stereo FM tuners in a hi-fi system get to lump it.
.... Phil
I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM.
The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal.
** Nope - the average power level of and AM or FM transmission does not change with modulation.
The received s/n ratio depends on carrier power - but once the signal at the antenna is high enough s/n reaches a limit.
Heavy compression of the modulation benefits listeners in bad environments, vehicles, busy streets, workplaces and the like.
Those at home with stereo FM tuners in a hi-fi system get to lump it.
At a modulation index of 1, the average power of an AM wave is 1.5
times the unmodulated carrier power.
Pt = Pc(1 + m^2 / 2)
So Ty has it right.
Pt = Pc(1 + m^2 / 2)
So Ty has it right.
** No he fucking does not - you lying pommy cunt !!
The average level of the modulated wave never changes.
So modulation has no effect of the recovered s/n at the receiver.
Still got no fucking idea how square wave ringing is not a new frequency ? >Course not - vile, autistic cunts like you would rather die not knowing.
And yet again, when confronted by facts,
Don Pearce = Massive Pommy LIAR Bullshitted. >=====================================
At a modulation index of 1, the average power of an AM wave is 1.5I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM.
The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal.
** Nope - the average power level of and AM or FM transmission does not change with modulation.
The received s/n ratio depends on carrier power - but once the signal at the antenna is high enough s/n reaches a limit.
Heavy compression of the modulation benefits listeners in bad environments, vehicles, busy streets, workplaces and the like.
Those at home with stereo FM tuners in a hi-fi system get to lump it.
times the unmodulated carrier power.
Pt = Pc(1 + m^2 / 2)
So Ty has it right.
** No he fucking does not - you lying pommy cunt !!
The average level of the modulated wave never changes.
So modulation has no effect of the recovered s/n at the receiver.
Still got no fucking idea how square wave ringing is not a new frequency ? >Course not - vile, autistic cunts like you would rather die not knowing.
Don Pearce Vile Pommy CUNT wrote:
==========================
And yet again, when confronted by facts,
Pt = Pc(1 + m^2 / 2)
So Ty has it right.
** No he fucking does not - you lying pommy cunt !!
The average level of the modulated wave never changes.
So modulation has no effect of the recovered s/n at the receiver.
Still got no fucking idea how square wave ringing is not a new frequency ? >> >Course not - vile, autistic cunts like you would rather die not knowing.
** The formula is true strictly only for * RMS* power.
- making a barking mad *autistic* conclusion about receiver s/n is NOT !!!
The average level of the modulated wave never changes.
So modulation has no effect of the recovered s/n at the receiver.
Still got no fucking idea how square wave ringing is not a new frequency ? >Course not - vile, autistic pommy cunts like you would rather die not knowing.
Feel a bit hot, chest sore, hard to breathe ?
No appetite ?
Covid is a real bitch.
** Nope - the average power level of and AM or FM transmission does not change with modulation.
.... Phil
*** Nope, Phil. Sorry. You're incorrect. Maintaining higher modulation levels for AM keeps a wider coverage area.
Do/did you ever have an FCC First Phone?
Ty you can safely ignore Phil. You are dead right. I used to be
Principal Engineer for Marconi Instruments. That means I designed both
RF signal sources and analysers, so I understand modulation and what
it does. I was also an accredited NAMAS sign-off for calibrated
standards.
d
I used to be Principal Engineer for Marconi Instruments. That means I designed both
RF signal sources and analysers, so I understand modulation and what
it does.
RMS power? There is no such thing.
180% positive and 100% negative. Really?!Morgan explained to me the way it worked, including the FCC-ordered reduction to 125% positive peak modulation.
Ty Ford who simply knows nothing at all wrote: =======================================
180% positive and 100% negative. Really?!Morgan explained to me the way it worked, including the FCC-ordered reduction to 125% positive peak modulation.
I recall wondering what that over 100% modulation might do to overall fidelity.
** So you had no idea that is was not an issue?
No big surprise for a glorified radio DJ.
How come you took up doing fake "reviews" of microphones for a business?
...... Phil
Ty Ford who simply knows nothing at all wrote: =======================================
180% positive and 100% negative. Really?!Morgan explained to me the way it worked, including the FCC-ordered reduction
to 125% positive peak modulation.
I recall wondering what that over 100% modulation might do to overall fidelity.
** So you had no idea that is was not an issue?
No big surprise for a glorified radio DJ.
How come you took up doing fake "reviews" of microphones for a business?
Yawn.
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:41:09 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:Z100 processing? Is it not double processed?
On 11/09/2021 6:17 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:26:56 AM UTC-4, Ty wrote:
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:47:02 PM UTC-4, Dustin wrote:
I'm working on a project with some friends of mine and we've ran into a dilemma. We need to accurately mimic authentic modern radio sound to where it would be hard to differentiate it from an actual station.
Any advice to help get it 'just right' would be greatly appreciated! >>>>>
Sincerely,
Dustin
OK, Carly Simon was entrained to appreciate the Z100 processing chain. Clearly, not every song sounds like that in its natural mastered state. What does a song sound like if it's pre-processed to sound like that already and then goes through the
in front of our optimod!!!???? I told him it was a piece of wire. IOW, nothing. You can chase your tail in that race and drive yourself crazy.
I recall a conversation with a DC radio friend when I was at 98Rock in Baltimore. He said he'd been in a loudness war with other DC stations and after their last (hopefully) triumphant tweek, he switched to us and liked us better. What did we have
___________No. hyper-compression and the 'loudness war' is some more than that._______
OTOH, we used to get calls at 98Rock from listeners who asked what LP we would be playing at midnight. When I asked one of them why they didn't just go and buy the LP, he said, "Because I like the way it sounds on the air better."
The End
There you go, Scott D!
So commercial radio, unwittingly perhaps, played an early, partial role
in what would be referred to by around 2000 as the "loudness war".
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their >>> audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.No, to make an 'impact' on listeners, a uniform level so that constant
adjustments are not required by the listener for different
songs/albums/artists, and cater to higher-noise environments
environments like in offices/shops/automobiles.
Your favorite hyper-compression and loudness-wars happen before the
Originally, that would just involve the RIAA phono curve equivalent of
(HF only) pre-emphasis, and de-emph at the tuner end, plus, modest
amounts of peak-limiting and dynamic compression, maybe up to
a 1.5:1.0 ratio?
Now there's tons of EQ, layers of multi-band, and gosh knows how
much limiting! AAnd of course at can all be done in one or two rack-mounts, >>> such as an Optimod, or whatever brand is the modern equivalent.
music even gets to a radio station.
Thes stations are all in a race to the bottom of hell trying to achieve thatThat is their decision. Sadly.
'ratings-worthy' sound! The ONLY sound that should matter is the sound of >>> what they play!
be so different. But Justin Bieber - surely you are kidding ?
For Carly Simon, or anyone, to set the bar for their album sound so low
is beyond shameful, but of course now most albums since 2000 sound
that way.
Yes, I do own a Justin Bieber CD, and one by Adele. And you know what?
There is less of a difference between how those two sound on the radio vs >>> when I play their CDs, vs when I hear 'Thriller' or 'Dark Side Of The Moon' >>> on the radio and then toss in the original issue CDs of those albums. Sad! >> Yes, there is less to compress on those newer albums, so the sound won't
geoff
1. Notice I said radio's "partial" role in it. Later digital forms of processing at
the mastering stage were the nail in the coffin for decent sounding albums.
2. My "favorite" hypercompression - by saying that geoff you are implying
that it doesn't exist, and that only one person is concerned with it. Stop
doing that - it's juvenile and NewsMaxian.
3. Before it gets to a station. I know that. Then the station add its own
'icing' to the cake when it's played.
4. Bieber, other modern poppers: I keep them as examples of how
NOT to make a record! In the case of Adele and Bruno - their material is relatively good! It's how it's 'engineered' that myself - AND
MANY OTHERS - take issue with.
It sort of does. A lot of the hyper compression and perceived level maximization only became possible with DSP. Your options are pretty1. Notice I said radio's "partial" role in it. Later digital forms of processing at
the mastering stage were the nail in the coffin for decent sounding albums.
Digital processing has in itself has nothing to do with questionable >mastering tastes.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 12:59:19 +1200, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org>
wrote:
It sort of does. A lot of the hyper compression and perceived level maximization only became possible with DSP. Your options are pretty1. Notice I said radio's "partial" role in it. Later digital forms of processing at
the mastering stage were the nail in the coffin for decent sounding albums.
Digital processing has in itself has nothing to do with questionable
mastering tastes.
limited in the analogue domain.
d
On 13/09/2021 7:54 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 12:59:19 +1200, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org>
wrote:
It sort of does. A lot of the hyper compression and perceived level1. Notice I said radio's "partial" role in it. Later digital forms of processing at
the mastering stage were the nail in the coffin for decent sounding albums.
Digital processing has in itself has nothing to do with questionable
mastering tastes.
maximization only became possible with DSP. Your options are pretty
limited in the analogue domain.
d
Possible yes. But not in the slightest compulsory.
2. My "favorite" hypercompression - by saying that geoff you are implying that it doesn't exist,
and that only one person is concerned with it.
Stop doing that - it's juvenile and NewsMaxian.
4. Bieber
Don Pearce Insane Pommy Asshole wrote:
I used to be Principal Engineer for Marconi Instruments. That means I designed both
RF signal sources and analysers, so I understand modulation and what
it does.
** So can anyone with an engineering background - it ain't secret knowledge.
But what you really are is a arrogant, bullshitting, nut case pommy arsehole.
And there are 10s of millions of them.
On 9/12/21 1:32 PM, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
Don Pearce Insane Pommy Asshole wrote:
I used to be Principal Engineer for Marconi Instruments. That means I designed both
RF signal sources and analysers, so I understand modulation and what
it does.
______** So can anyone with an engineering background - it ain't secret knowledge.
But what you really are is a arrogant, bullshitting, nut case pommy arsehole.
And there are 10s of millions of them.Personal attacks. The last hope for a losing argument.
Don Pearce Insane Pommy Asshole wrote:
I used to be Principal Engineer for Marconi Instruments. That means I designed both
RF signal sources and analysers, so I understand modulation and what
it does.
** So can anyone with an engineering background - it ain't secret knowledge.
But what you really are is a arrogant, bullshitting, nut case pommy arsehole.
And there are 10s of millions of them.
Personal attacks. The last hope for a losing argument.
You have only two choices, fight the bullshitters and trolls OR pack up and go home.
I chose the former.
In a forum where there are NO no rules, where you can be slandered publicly by the anonymous, where you cannot chose whom to >>debate with or avoid debate - the rule you mindlessly cite is COMPELTELY IRRELEVANT !!.
Usenet is no debating society - its a * fucking street fight* .
You have only two choices, fight the bullshitters and trolls OR pack up and go home.
I chose the former.
It's always fun to watch an insane man...
Tobiah the Troll wrote:
-----------------------------------
Don Pearce Insane Pommy Asshole wrote:
I used to be Principal Engineer for Marconi Instruments. That means I designed both
RF signal sources and analysers, so I understand modulation and what
it does.
** So can anyone with an engineering background - it ain't secret knowledge.
But what you really are is a arrogant, bullshitting, nut case pommy arsehole.
And there are 10s of millions of them.
Personal attacks. The last hope for a losing argument.
** Totally false.
In a forum where there are NO no rules, where you can be slandered publicly by the anonymous, where you cannot chose whom to debate with or avoid debate - the rule you mindlessly cite is COMPELTELY IRRELEVANT !!.
Usenet is no debating society - its a * fucking street fight* .
You have only two choices, fight the bullshitters and trolls OR pack up and go home.
I chose the former.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 15:06:15 -0700 (PDT), "palli...@gmail.com" <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:
============
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their >>>> audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
** Doubtful.
I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM.
The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal.
** Nope - the average power level of and AM or FM transmission does not change with modulation.
The received s/n ratio depends on carrier power - but once the signal at the antenna is high enough s/n reaches a limit.
Heavy compression of the modulation benefits listeners in bad environments, vehicles, busy streets, workplaces and the like.
Those at home with stereo FM tuners in a hi-fi system get to lump it.
.... Phil
At a modulation index of 1, the average power of an AM wave is 1.5
times the unmodulated carrier power.
Pt = Pc(1 + m^2 / 2)
So Ty has it right.
d
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 15:06:15 -0700 (PDT), "palli...@gmail.com"
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:
============
And FMs in particular have a reason to do it - fundamentally to get their >>>>> audible signal 'out of the grass' signal-to-noise ratio-wise.
** Doubtful.
I think that AM benefits significantly more than FM.
The amount of consistent modulation ends up as power to the sidebands and increases the overall coverage of the AM signal.
** Nope - the average power level of and AM or FM transmission does not change with modulation.
The received s/n ratio depends on carrier power - but once the signal at the antenna is high enough s/n reaches a limit.
Heavy compression of the modulation benefits listeners in bad environments, vehicles, busy streets, workplaces and the like.
Those at home with stereo FM tuners in a hi-fi system get to lump it.
.... Phil
At a modulation index of 1, the average power of an AM wave is 1.5
times the unmodulated carrier power.
Pt = Pc(1 + m^2 / 2)
So Ty has it right.
d
I really want that 1.5 to be a misrepresented 1.414 from the age of >typewriters. :) I do not know why.
There is actually an absolute ton of things I like about a moderately compressed sound. I'm not a big fan of over the top compression but if done properly with purpose, I believe it can be a very nice listen.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 55:52:06 |
| Calls: | 6,651 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,761 |