Radio World: Is It Time for Radio to Restore Dynamic Range?
Jan 6, 2021 19:16:36 GMT
mark likes this
Post by Boomer on Jan 6, 2021 19:16:36 GMT
Is It Time for Radio to Restore Dynamic Range?
By John Kean ⋅
More: www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/guest-commentaries/is-it-time-for-radio-to-restore-dynamic-range
I like the old graphic from General Electric, promoting their FM equipment and comparing the dynamic range of AM and FM. I would guess those were averages at the time, especially for AM, where noise floor would vary with signal strength. GE was trying to prove the point that FM has lower noise, more dynamics, but I think the author is right, dynamics as a matter of faithful reproduction has been forgotten by most radio stations, and certainly by the big networks.
I noticed the processing effect long ago, when I got FM stereo and a tape deck with VU meters on it. I'd notice that bigger stations would keep the meters up near 0 vu all the time, and dip to maybe -6, then on ten watt college station that didn't have processing, the meters might dip below -10 or more, the swing was a lot more on small stations.
I'll admit this is a seed post, where I ran and got something to put up. I've been coming here in this new year and not seeing anything new, and had the thought that the group will close if no one is using it, so someone should do something.
Boomer
By John Kean ⋅
Audio processing has reached a level of performance where audio content can have high loudness without the traditional artifacts of audible clipping, pumping, intermodulation distortion, etc.
Of course, audio processing in a broadcast medium is justifiable for over-modulation protection and combatting noisy listening environments.
Due to freedom from distortion in processors and loudness wars, however, much of radio has reached a state of hyper-compression, where already-compressed popular music is fed to multiband compressors and limiters that aggressively reprocess the audio.
This situation is hard to reverse in broadcast, where competitive loudness remains a concern, but I believe minimal processing may be the right direction for online radio media.
I hate to be nostalgic, but FM was once considered a “high fidelity” medium (I’m old enough to remember!).
Of course, audio processing in a broadcast medium is justifiable for over-modulation protection and combatting noisy listening environments.
Due to freedom from distortion in processors and loudness wars, however, much of radio has reached a state of hyper-compression, where already-compressed popular music is fed to multiband compressors and limiters that aggressively reprocess the audio.
This situation is hard to reverse in broadcast, where competitive loudness remains a concern, but I believe minimal processing may be the right direction for online radio media.
I hate to be nostalgic, but FM was once considered a “high fidelity” medium (I’m old enough to remember!).
More: www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/guest-commentaries/is-it-time-for-radio-to-restore-dynamic-range
I like the old graphic from General Electric, promoting their FM equipment and comparing the dynamic range of AM and FM. I would guess those were averages at the time, especially for AM, where noise floor would vary with signal strength. GE was trying to prove the point that FM has lower noise, more dynamics, but I think the author is right, dynamics as a matter of faithful reproduction has been forgotten by most radio stations, and certainly by the big networks.
I noticed the processing effect long ago, when I got FM stereo and a tape deck with VU meters on it. I'd notice that bigger stations would keep the meters up near 0 vu all the time, and dip to maybe -6, then on ten watt college station that didn't have processing, the meters might dip below -10 or more, the swing was a lot more on small stations.
I'll admit this is a seed post, where I ran and got something to put up. I've been coming here in this new year and not seeing anything new, and had the thought that the group will close if no one is using it, so someone should do something.
Boomer
