KIIS vs KFMB quality question
 

Hello,

I'm in southwestern Riverside County -- Southern California -- and I
get both KIIS-FM (102.7, Top-40, Los Angeles) and KFMB-FM (100.7,
Hot-ish AC, San Diego).

I like -- and dislike -- both for various reasons. I can only tolerate
about 50% KIIS's library and can't stand the morning programming, but
its a strong signal and the music that they play & I like, I really
like. I listen to KIIS when traveling to and from my dad's place in
Long Beach.

I like KFMB's morning hosts and about 90% of their library, but
outside of mornings they tend to talk more than I want to listen and
they hang on to tracks way too long before moving new stuff into the
rotation. Signal strength is slightly above so-so where I live, but I
listen to them on my way in to school (30 miles closer to San Diego) 5
days a week and strength improves dramatically on my way in [In fact
they're the only English-speaking non-country radio station I can
[usually] hold on to for almost 100% of my commute due to the terain.

My question, though, is this: While flipping between KFMB and KIIS
I've noticed on several occassions that the actual transmission from
KIIS sounds much clearer, livelier, richer... just plain better; KFMB
on the other hand and in comparison sounds... well, hold music was one
of my first thoughts. It's muddy, lacks real rande definition and
clarity and sounds like someone has their compressor wrenched up to 12
on a 1-10 scale.

As far as I know, both are using digital playback systems (as are most
stations, right) but I don't know about the rest of the air chain for
either of the stations. I personally -- with virtually no exp. with
"real" radio -- would venture to guess based on the quality that KIIS
is sending a digital feed to their transmitter vs. KFMB using
[several?] analog link[s] in their STL.

For my own curiosity what is really the likely cause of this vast
difference in quality?

Lincoln
Sophomore, Computer Science, CSU San Marcos

[BTW - If anyone has any tips to score a tour of either of these
stations (or any stations in the LA or San Diego area from an
engineering/behind-the-scenes perspective, I would be VERY interested]

Lincoln J. King-Cliby wrote:

For my own curiosity what is really the likely cause of this vast
difference in quality?

Different processing chains. Both stations are most likely compressed to
the hilt. One station is clearly better at it than the other, though.

[BTW - If anyone has any tips to score a tour of either of these
stations (or any stations in the LA or San Diego area from an
engineering/behind-the-scenes perspective, I would be VERY interested]

Call up the station, ask to talk to the engineer, and ask for a tour.
They'll probably be quite delighted to do it, if they actually have a
staff engineer. It's so hard to get new people interested in the field
these days that interested young people are usually quite welcome.

You might not be allowed to look at the processing rack, though. In
a lot of places there are covers over some of the processing gear so
nobody can steal the processing secrets that make the stations sound
so awful...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Lincoln J. King-Cliby wrote:

snip
My question, though, is this: While flipping between KFMB and KIIS
I've noticed on several occassions that the actual transmission from
KIIS sounds much clearer, livelier, richer... just plain better; KFMB
on the other hand and in comparison sounds... well, hold music was one
of my first thoughts. It's muddy, lacks real rande definition and
clarity and sounds like someone has their compressor wrenched up to 12
on a 1-10 scale.

snip

For my own curiosity what is really the likely cause of this vast
difference in quality?

Processing can have something to do with it, but another thought is that
the KIIS signal is stronger where you're driving and the radio remains
in full stereo while the KFMB signal being somewhat weaker is being
blended as car radios tend to do. There's too many variables to tell
for sure unless you can talk to the engineers at the stations involved.

Charlie