In article ,
"Bob Haberkost" wrote:

It's good to see that the unfettered ego is still alive in audio processing.
While you're right...the east coast and Pittsburgh, in particular, sounded
like crap...still does, for that matter. But one station did stand out for
quality and loudness...mine.

Ego?

You don't have to believe me, and I have
nothing that requires that you do. But...if you want to believe that your
inadequate skills have no relationship to your inability to get an audio
processing chain to sound decent and loud with as little discernable
tradeoff, it's no skin off my nose.

And you don't know me, you don't know what stations I maintain, you
don't know my history and involvement with audio processing, FCC
rulemaking, or technical innovation. You have never heard or seen my
work, unless you have visited the San Francisco area. And even then, you
don't know which stations represent my efforts. Yet, you have no problem
assessing my skill level when it comes to broadcast audio. You presume
much.

Just because you can't make them sound good, doesn't make them crap, either.
Just admit that you don't know how to make them sound good, since others
have no trouble showing that it's not impossible to do.

Unlike you, I'm not going to brag about how my stations sound. I don't
have an inferiority complex that requires self-promotion, nor do I need
to resort to personal attacks to make my points.

I've given you my assessment of Texars. Take it or leave it. Apparently,
at least more than a few others agree since you won't find very many on
the air at major-market stations.

I'll leave it at that.

--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

Just because you can't make them sound good, doesn't make them crap,

With reference to the actual subject of this thread someone can correct
me hear but I do believe there were mod's available also for the Texar's
themselves.

I have a pair of Prisms here and also one of their AM Prisms which I've
yet to hook-up to a transmitter.

Aside from the above and possibly a subject for another thread (as this
one's getting somewhat frosty) I would be very interested in what
processing chains people are using on both AM an FM stations.

I'm sure most of you have seen the processor chain photo's on Gary
Blau's site:

http://www.w3am.com/audiocha.html

On my very first visits to your country in the early 80's I accidentally
tuned into KHJ/KRTH when they were using the latter call letters on AM
930 and their audio on AM literally 'blew me away'.

From what I've heard their audio quality was not typical.
--
Philip de Cadenet

In article ,
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:

Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?

Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.

--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

On 17 Apr 2004 16:05:56 GMT, "Eric C. Weaver" wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

There are plenty of PDs who don't want transparency, and in fact who
want processing that specifically puts their fingerprint on the sound
and makes it sound different than everything else on the dial. Not
necessarily better, just different.

Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?

There are a few oldies stations that do, because they're trying to
recreate the sound of the big Top 40 stations of the 60's and 70's.

Mark Howell

John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:


Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?


Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.


Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...


--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring
production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --FZ

John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:

Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?

Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.

Hey, we got a station here where the airchain produces so much audible
distortion on voices that the announcer mike goes through seperate and
less aggressive processing (including some bizarre EQ but no reverb)
and is injected into the airchain after most of the conventional processing
chain. THAT is sick.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Eric,

Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?


Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.


Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...

Didn't WABC once use an EMT plate reverb?
--
Philip de Cadenet
Transmitters 'R' Us
http://www.transmittersrus.com

I don't get it, but then I think the whole loudness war thing is silly
anyway.

On that, we can agree fully.

Thanks all for the comments.
I just wanted info on the Texar not to start a war )

In my opinion, the urge to process sound makes sense.

Increasing the average audio level (but keeping the maximum constant)
will increase signal to noise ratio, and the perceived loudness,
whether it's for recording, AM or FM transmitting.

As allways there are 2 sides to a coin, in this case the drawback is
listening fattigue due to decreased dynamics and increased distorsion.

In short we make sure we use our recources fully.
Some don't settle for less then maximum all the time, while others
realise that there is a backside to it, and makes a more balanced
setting.

But as the technology matures, most of the gains are allready made and
further advances takes huge efforts and gives only small advances.

At this moment, all cind of metaphysical terms and decription starts
to florish, and I stop listening and turns my attension elsewhere.

In article ,
"Bob Haberkost" wrote:

I made no presumptions on your skills...you did. You stated that Texars
were,
basically, crap, due to the fact that you couldn't make them do what you
wanted.
Then you blamed the device, figuring that it couldn't be you.

I've never used, or tried to use a Texar. My conclusions about Texars
are based on the results obtained by others in this market.

All I was saying is that it wasn't the device. So it must be you.

I had nothing to do with it. But I'm not willing to believe that a dozen
engineers in the SFBA are incompetent. You can make that assertion if
you like, but I'd like to see you back it up. More than a dozen stations
tried Texar; every one yanked them off.

But I have no need for self-promotion. I don't so this anymore, because
there's no
money in it, nor creativity, nor sole.

Only if you are mediocre and uninspired. I'm making a fine living in
broadcast engineering, and I'm enjoying the challenges. Don't blame an
entire industry for your own inadequacies.

And one of the reasons why is
because, as was
noted elsewhere, PDs think that their "signature sound" is actually what the
audience
wants. I know better. And I quit.

I know that as well. However, I have managed to influence the stations
under my charge to adopt reasonable approaches to their audio processing.

I guess it is all a matter of individual ability and fortitude. Sorry
you couldn't cut it.

--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

the old WABC trademark reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...

Sheesh. Talk about mixing metaphors.

None of the WABC jocks screamed, nor were they known as "boss jocks." I don't
know what station you thought you were listening to, but it wasn't WABC.