"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


Most people don't even notice it, such is the way of today's music
(most
any format). It's all part of the 'volume wars'. Stations clamoring to
get noticed in a sea of other stations, so they want their signal to be
as
loud as possible.

If anything, processing is less on the average than it was in the 70's
and
80's on FM, or the way it was in the 60's on AM.

The argument is dynamic range and I find your 6 dB figure unbelievable.

That was Brenda Ann's statement, but I agree with her that the range is
limited to about that figure, with a few give and takes. CHR stations may be
a little less, while AC's and such may be a little more, but not much in
either direction.

Eduardo talks about how stations have been using compression for many
decades. This may well be true, but not the vast majority of them.

I don't recall ever seeing a US station without at least a peak limiter
going back to the late 50's. And everywhere I went, I visited stations...
ranging from places like Ludington, MI, to San Francisco.

Fine. I understand the need for limiting. So what.

Limiting is a form of compression since it removes excursions in excess of
the level that would produce 100% modulation (or 100% negative peaks on AM).

Then the Audimax and Volumax came out in the early 60's and we all went
crazy changing the components to get more clipping and greater and faster
AGC. The 80's brought multiband processors from Durrough and Gregg Labs
and
such, and culminated with the Optimod.

Look, I understand that there are limiter and processors but I just
can't believe most stations compress music into a 6 dB range. That's
just not right.


It's what works.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


Most people don't even notice it, such is the way of today's music
(most
any format). It's all part of the 'volume wars'. Stations clamoring to
get noticed in a sea of other stations, so they want their signal to be
as
loud as possible.

If anything, processing is less on the average than it was in the 70's
and
80's on FM, or the way it was in the 60's on AM.

The argument is dynamic range and I find your 6 dB figure unbelievable.

That was Brenda Ann's statement, but I agree with her that the range is
limited to about that figure, with a few give and takes. CHR stations may be
a little less, while AC's and such may be a little more, but not much in
either direction.

Eduardo talks about how stations have been using compression for many
decades. This may well be true, but not the vast majority of them.

I don't recall ever seeing a US station without at least a peak limiter
going back to the late 50's. And everywhere I went, I visited stations...
ranging from places like Ludington, MI, to San Francisco.

Fine. I understand the need for limiting. So what.

Limiting is a form of compression since it removes excursions in excess of
the level that would produce 100% modulation (or 100% negative peaks on AM).

Not really. Limiting is a hard stop that is not ever passed. Compression
is an algorithm applied to the program material that attempts to prevent
reaching that max limit but it could go over limit in extreme
circumstances.

Then the Audimax and Volumax came out in the early 60's and we all went
crazy changing the components to get more clipping and greater and faster
AGC. The 80's brought multiband processors from Durrough and Gregg Labs
and
such, and culminated with the Optimod.

Look, I understand that there are limiter and processors but I just
can't believe most stations compress music into a 6 dB range. That's
just not right.


It's what works.

I don't think so. Maybe that's why I can't listen to most FM stations as
you helped pervert the sound.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:
..

Limiting is a form of compression since it removes excursions in excess
of
the level that would produce 100% modulation (or 100% negative peaks on
AM).

Not really. Limiting is a hard stop that is not ever passed. Compression
is an algorithm applied to the program material that attempts to prevent
reaching that max limit but it could go over limit in extreme
circumstances.

That's the definition that fit 30 years ago. Today, audio processers like
the Optimod and the Omnia employ delay to look ahead at the audio, then,
with advance knowledge, know when to reduce gain to prevent the need to peak
limit by hard clipping. So what we have is a merging of the concept of
compression and peak limiting. It's all achieved by looking ahead to know
how to process the audio that then heads to the transmitter.

It's what works.

I don't think so. Maybe that's why I can't listen to most FM stations as
you helped pervert the sound.

There are about 30,000 stations in the Western Hemisphere. I can't see how
one person's adjustments can influence all of them.

The real truth is that stations have realized that a sound that is loud,
level and specttrally balanced wins if the programming is right.

Today's radio sounds infinitely better than it did 30 or 40 years ago.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:
.

Limiting is a form of compression since it removes excursions in excess
of
the level that would produce 100% modulation (or 100% negative peaks on
AM).

Not really. Limiting is a hard stop that is not ever passed. Compression
is an algorithm applied to the program material that attempts to prevent
reaching that max limit but it could go over limit in extreme
circumstances.

That's the definition that fit 30 years ago. Today, audio processers like
the Optimod and the Omnia employ delay to look ahead at the audio, then,
with advance knowledge, know when to reduce gain to prevent the need to peak
limit by hard clipping. So what we have is a merging of the concept of
compression and peak limiting. It's all achieved by looking ahead to know
how to process the audio that then heads to the transmitter.

I have a new moniker for you. Eduardo the 6 dB man, same BS story all
the time.

It's what works.

I don't think so. Maybe that's why I can't listen to most FM stations as
you helped pervert the sound.

There are about 30,000 stations in the Western Hemisphere. I can't see how
one person's adjustments can influence all of them.

The real truth is that stations have realized that a sound that is loud,
level and specttrally balanced wins if the programming is right.

Today's radio sounds infinitely better than it did 30 or 40 years ago.

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

What radio stations do today is wrong and the listenership is falling
off.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

Untrue. The "loudness" is done in mixdown and mastering. Most producers of
contemporary music look for a heavy, dense sound.

What radio stations do today is wrong and the listenership is falling
off.

I see. People are going to 128 kbs mp3's because radio sounds bad?

Again, the limited dynamic range is necessary to keep al program content
above the noise level of the listening environment. Radio is not the same as
listening to a CD.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

Untrue. The "loudness" is done in mixdown and mastering. Most producers of
contemporary music look for a heavy, dense sound.

It is true. Take the cotton out of your ears. Of course it is done with
track mixing. You think the musicians are compressing their physical
instruments? Hilarious!

What radio stations do today is wrong and the listenership is falling
off.

I see. People are going to 128 kbs mp3's because radio sounds bad?

People resort to MP3 to save disk space not because it sounds good. MP3
is not all the same as you can determine the level of compression. And
before you get all crazy dynamic range compression is not the same thing
as data compression.

Again, the limited dynamic range is necessary to keep al program content
above the noise level of the listening environment. Radio is not the same as
listening to a CD.

The old record were capable of around 80 dB and CD's are around 90 dB. I
don't see why radio stations can't do 80 dB. The transmitters can handle
85% modulation.

And as for previous statements about table top radio with speakers only
a foot apart being worthless for stereo these can generate decent stereo
separation through electronic delay processing.

Hey, I just heard a spot for HD radio. I can answer it this way,
American's are smart enough to stay away from it. Ha, ha.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in
the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

Untrue. The "loudness" is done in mixdown and mastering. Most producers
of
contemporary music look for a heavy, dense sound.

It is true. Take the cotton out of your ears. Of course it is done with
track mixing. You think the musicians are compressing their physical
instruments? Hilarious!

You said the bands were responsible. They are not. And mixdown is a lot more
than combining tracks at different levels... often individual instruments
are processed individually to bring out a particular "sound" the producer is
after. Again, it's not the band that makes thise decision in 99% of the
cases.

People resort to MP3 to save disk space not because it sounds good. MP3
is not all the same as you can determine the level of compression.

With terabyte HD's under $200 and 500 gig laptop drives at about $120 and
various memory plug ins at 8 gigs for around $20, there is no need for 128
kbs MP3s... it's simply the de facto standard for consumer audio.

MP3s are not overally intended always to save disk space. They are used at
the high end (256 kbs and 320 kbs) to be infinitely portable and
exchangable. A huge percentage of commercials come to stations now online
and in MP3 format, and most promotional music is in MP3 format... everyone
can play them, every system can use them.

And
before you get all crazy dynamic range compression is not the same thing
as data compression.

I realize this. Dynamic range compression is the restriction of the audio
content to a specific range. In this instance, I was discussing MP3's, not
the air chain of a radio station.

Again, the limited dynamic range is necessary to keep al program content
above the noise level of the listening environment. Radio is not the same
as
listening to a CD.

The old record were capable of around 80 dB and CD's are around 90 dB. I
don't see why radio stations can't do 80 dB. The transmitters can handle
85% modulation.

AM can handle 100% negative peaks, and most transmitters of the last few
decades can do maybe 140% on positive peaks.

FM transmitters can do way over 100% modulation, as the standard in the US
is simply +/- 75 kHz deviation for the arbitrary 100% modulation. In fact,
one can go to about 130% before receiver bandwidth shape factors make it
start sounding ugly.

Dynamic range is limited to make radio listenable in the typical
environments radio is heard in. The dominant factor is in-car, where if you
go beyond about 8 to 10 db noise masks some of the audio. So all other
environments where radio is used are subject to the limits of the worst one,
which is mostly in-car.

And as for previous statements about table top radio with speakers only
a foot apart being worthless for stereo these can generate decent stereo
separation through electronic delay processing.

I said no such thing, and you are lying. I said that many so-called stereo
clock radios have speakers that are 3" to 4" apart, and unless you put your
head within a few inches of the radio, the stereo effect is lost.

Hey, I just heard a spot for HD radio. I can answer it this way,
American's are smart enough to stay away from it. Ha, ha.

And you know so little about consumer behaviour that you should be written
up as a case study.