Generic Compressor in AUDACITY v1.2.6

[ChrisCoaster]

Backline:

I've always been intrigued by why the tuner/radio section of my
boomboxes, stereo receiver, and car deck out-LOUDS!!!! the other
sources on these audio devices. A few years ago I learned that
stations use compressors and (hard) limiters to squash the dyna-range
and keep everything pegged close to 0 dB on the meters. Recently,
with my download of the freeware Audacity above, I began my quest to
find out NOT what radio stations use to sound louder, but HOW. Read:
I want to create versions of my mp3s that sound as compressed, EQ'd,
as AWFUL as they do on some FM stations. :)

Up Front:


First, I drag a(quality) mp3 into into mp3Gain - one of 256kb or
higher so there's no artifacts from the processing to check it's
average level. The track I'm using comes back 91.2(close to my setting
of 91dB).

I then drop it into Audacity. Now there are 2 compressors on Audie -
the generic one with threshold, ratio, and a toggle for automatic
regain, and another more advanced one - the SC4 which BTW does not
work on my edition - it does NADA, KAKA!(not important, as I've
progressed in my mastery of the basic "Compressor" as you will see
below):

Step 1: I EQ out everything below 70Hz and above 10kHZ.

Step 2: Amplify the track to -2 -3db(if possible or necessary).

Step 3: Apply compression - 2:1 At a very low threshold(-50 to -40dB).

This results in a thin squiggly representation of the song's wave,
with a few empire-state building sized spikes. These I knock out with
the Hard Limiter.

Step 4: Amplify to -2 again. The song's wave is thicker now,
noticeably, with somewhat less variation between loud and soft.

Step 5: Compress - 4 or 5:1 at a more modest threshold(-20 to
-15dB). Again, a more compressed blue line with fewer gaps. I hit it
with Hard Limiter to knock off any really high peaks, then Amp it
again to -2 or -3.

Step 6: A Final compressor pass above -8 or -6dB threshold, this time
at 8:1 or 9:1 ratio.

**Again - notice - it takes multiple passes of compressor, hard
limiter, and amplification to get most of the dynamics of the track to
within at most 2dB of a target volume. One fell swoop of 10:1
compression with high attack at a -12dB threshold ain't gonna do it,
folks - at least not in Audacity.**

The graphic of the song is now solid blue. I hard limit it back to -4
or -5dB and amp it once more up to -2db.

I then export it as MP3, with the same filename but with "Compressed"
added to avoid overwriting my precious original(!). It's now on my
desktop, where I can run it through mp3Gain again . . .

MAMA MIA!!! 100.3dB!!!! Ouch!! I mp3Gain it to a more *reasonable*
94 dB.

I then drag both the original and the compressed mp3s of the same song
into VDJ, and synch them up and crossfade. The difference is
astounding. On the left - the original - really makes that meter
dance. On the right - my compression job - MUCH louder, but: the
meter on that side is barely budging - as though I'm playing white or
pink noise through it. A board op would have no problems watching the
levels with stuff like this - the VU meter just about stands still -
trimmed up nicely just below 0dB.

On my mp3 player, the dozen or so tracks I've categorized as
"Compression models" are so loud, yet unwavering in volume, I can set
the player real low, go about my work, and still hear the whole song
cutting through the background at work.

I've discovered the secret of commercial radio compression. Making
operating a station board so simple a caveman could do it. (Sorry
GEICO!)

-ChrisCoaster

[Mark]

>
> I've discovered the secret of commercial radio compression. *Making
> operating a station board so simple a caveman could do it. *(Sorry
> GEICO!)
>
> -ChrisCoaster

next you will learn the secret of listener fatigue..

the radio stations have also found that they don't just need you to
tune in, they also need you to stay tuned in..

so they are reducing the compression or at least are using more
sophisticated multi-band compressors so that folks can stand to listen
for more then 5 minutes at a time.

Mark

[ChrisCoaster]

On Jul 7, 8:21*pm, Mark > wrote:
> > I've discovered the secret of commercial radio compression. *Making
> > operating a station board so simple a caveman could do it. *(Sorry
> > GEICO!)
>
> > -ChrisCoaster
>
> next you will learn the secret of listener fatigue..
>
> the radio stations have also found that they don't just need you to
> tune in, they also need you to stay tuned in..
>
> so they are reducing the compression or at least are using more
> sophisticated multi-band compressors so that folks can stand to listen
> for more then 5 minutes at a time.
>
> Mark
_________________

Intriguing - multiband. So I guess different music genres you leave
the most vital frequencies uncompressed, relatively. I'd still like
some input on what is wrong with the SC4 emulator on my Audacity - I
hear the nuts n bolts SC4 is a workhorse of both the live and recorded
sound industries.

-CC

[[email protected]]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
: Intriguing - multiband. So I guess different music genres you leave
: the most vital frequencies uncompressed, relatively.

One reason for multiband compression is, for example, so that a big
hit in the bass won't cause the treble to pump, and vice versa.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Jul 7, 9:05*pm, wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
> : Intriguing - multiband. *So I guess different music genres you leave
> : the most vital frequencies uncompressed, relatively.
>
> One reason for multiband compression is, for example, so that a big
> hit in the bass won't cause the treble to pump, and vice versa.
______________

I've heard this pumping and breathing before, with over-applied
limiters. It's kinda weird. Also, when you compress a song it
actually changes how you "hear" the song. The backup vocals are equal
in intensity to the lead, and the reverb off the drums is in your
face.

I recall hearing "Streets of Philadelphia" by Bruce all summer the
year it came out, on the radio. I then hear it on a tape of the film
and hearing Bruce's voice so solid and present was "wrong" to me
because I was used to hearing it all compressed on the radio all
summer.

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On Jul 7, 9:16*pm, ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 9:05*pm, wrote:> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
> > : Intriguing - multiband. *So I guess different music genres you leave
> > : the most vital frequencies uncompressed, relatively.
>
> > One reason for multiband compression is, for example, so that a big
> > hit in the bass won't cause the treble to pump, and vice versa.
>
> ______________
>
> I've heard this pumping and breathing before, with over-applied
> limiters. *It's kinda weird. *Also, when you compress a song it
> actually changes how you "hear" the song. *The backup vocals are equal
> in intensity to the lead, and the reverb off the drums is in your
> face.
>
> I recall hearing "Streets of Philadelphia" by Bruce all summer the
> year it came out, on the radio. *I then hear it on a tape of the film
> and hearing Bruce's voice so solid and present was "wrong" to me
> because I was used to hearing it all compressed on the radio all
> summer.
>
> -CC
____________________

Addendum: Y'all can tell I grew up on the radio. 99.99999999999% of
all my music listening, from junior high up through college was from
on FM outlet or another. I was just too lazy to record all my CDs to
tape, and besides, my musical interests are wider than anybody's I
know! So you can say I had NO idea of how music was *supposed* to
sound. Thank goodness for the mp3 - I just hit shuffle, and all the
songs true to my heart are there. And, provided you are selective
about what bitrates you rip or download at, the dynamic range and
freq. response + the mobility make it a win^2.

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark > wrote:
>next you will learn the secret of listener fatigue..
>
>the radio stations have also found that they don't just need you to
>tune in, they also need you to stay tuned in..

Nahh, you only have to stick around long enough to listen to a commercial.

>so they are reducing the compression or at least are using more
>sophisticated multi-band compressors so that folks can stand to listen
>for more then 5 minutes at a time.

I thought it was two minutes twenty seconds on the average before the
listener changed stations?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
>Intriguing - multiband. So I guess different music genres you leave
>the most vital frequencies uncompressed, relatively. I'd still like
>some input on what is wrong with the SC4 emulator on my Audacity - I
>hear the nuts n bolts SC4 is a workhorse of both the live and recorded
>sound industries.

No, you still compress the hell out of them, you just make sure they do
not interact.

The first time I saw multiband compression was with the Optimod 8100,
and the key was that you could set the thing up so that loud bass didn't
cause higher frequencies to pump. This was the secret to a loud AOR
or UC sound back in the seventies. Then it just got worse.
--scott


"Turn the input into the Volumax up until you can hear it pumping.
Then turn it up a little more. It needs to be pumping, that's how
you know it's working right." -- Engineer, WTAR-AM

>
>-CC


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

[John Williamson]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

> I've discovered the secret of commercial radio compression. Making
> operating a station board so simple a caveman could do it. (Sorry
> GEICO!)
>
Or, you could just put one of these compressors in the chain before the
transmitter:-

http://www.orban.com/products/radio/

Then turn up the band gains all the way, turn on all the hard limiters,
and voila! you have the average sound of a commercial radio station as
heard in the UK. Don't forget to leave a bit of headroom so that the
commercials can come on even louder, though.

I'm not sure what BBC Radio 1 do to make their sound even more
objectionable, though.

(Okay, I'm exaggerating *slightly*...)
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:19:51 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster
> wrote:

>
>I've always been intrigued by why the tuner/radio section of my
>boomboxes, stereo receiver, and car deck out-LOUDS!!!! the other
>sources on these audio devices. A few years ago I learned that
>stations use compressors and (hard) limiters to squash the dyna-range
>and keep everything pegged close to 0 dB on the meters. Recently,
>with my download of the freeware Audacity above, I began my quest to
>find out NOT what radio stations use to sound louder, but HOW. Read:
>I want to create versions of my mp3s that sound as compressed, EQ'd,
>as AWFUL as they do on some FM stations. :)
>
>Up Front:
>
>
>First, I drag a(quality) mp3 into into mp3Gain - one of 256kb or
>higher so there's no artifacts from the processing to check it's
>average level. The track I'm using comes back 91.2(close to my setting
>of 91dB).


Why are you degrading to MP3 before starting the process?

[Arny Krueger]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message

> Backline:
>
> I've always been intrigued by why the tuner/radio section
> of my boomboxes, stereo receiver, and car deck
> out-LOUDS!!!! the other sources on these audio devices.
> A few years ago I learned that stations use compressors
> and (hard) limiters to squash the dyna-range and keep
> everything pegged close to 0 dB on the meters. Recently,
> with my download of the freeware Audacity above, I began
> my quest to find out NOT what radio stations use to sound
> louder, but HOW. Read: I want to create versions of my
> mp3s that sound as compressed, EQ'd, as AWFUL as they do
> on some FM stations. :)

Audacity supports VST plugins. There are many different compressors that are
VST plug-ings, some of which are freeware. Google, download and enjoy!

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>Why are you degrading to MP3 before starting the process?

You should also know that radical compression can exaggerate some MP3
artifacts too... some stuff that would not be audible directly becomes
painfully obvious when run through a typical airchain.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Jul 8, 5:29*am, Laurence Payne > wrote:

>
> Why are you degrading to MP3 before starting the process?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
_____________________

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I simply dragged and dropped mp3s
into the various apps to process them. And to tell you the honest
truth, I can't hear squat above 12kHz anyhow(too many years of too
many cans!), so a song played to me on a CD, cassette, or 256kbps or
higher mp3 sounds all the same to me.

Please clarify or contextualize your question above, and I *might*
entertain it further.

-CC

[Mike Rivers]

Mike Cleaver wrote:

> There is absolutely no reason for radio stations to be using mp3 music
> files these days.

Sure there is. That's what the music service sends them. The
wheels of the music industry turn slowly.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Mike Cleaver wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no reason for radio stations to be using mp3 music
> > files these days.
>
> Sure there is. That's what the music service sends them. The
> wheels of the music industry turn slowly.

It can still take "too long" to move 16/44.1 over the 'net to a whole
lot of places.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> Mike Cleaver wrote:
>
>> There is absolutely no reason for radio stations to be
>> using mp3 music files these days.
>
> Sure there is. That's what the music service sends them.
> The wheels of the music industry turn slowly.

Right. I get this feeling that Mike thinks that radio stations buy all new
equipment every 3 years...

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> Mike Rivers > wrote:

>> Mike Cleaver wrote:

>>> There is absolutely no reason for radio stations to be
>>> using mp3 music files these days.

>> Sure there is. That's what the music service sends them.
>> The wheels of the music industry turn slowly.

> It can still take "too long" to move 16/44.1 over the
> 'net to a whole lot of places.

I may have a 3 Mb/sec internet connection, but there's a lot of 200 kb/sec
hosts to upload to and download from.

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>
>> Mike Cleaver wrote:
>>
>>> There is absolutely no reason for radio stations to be
>>> using mp3 music files these days.
>>
>> Sure there is. That's what the music service sends them.
>> The wheels of the music industry turn slowly.
>
> Right. I get this feeling that Mike thinks that radio
> stations buy all new equipment every 3 years...

To clarify, I mean MikeC, not MikeR.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>
> > Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> >> Mike Cleaver wrote:
>
> >>> There is absolutely no reason for radio stations to be
> >>> using mp3 music files these days.
>
> >> Sure there is. That's what the music service sends them.
> >> The wheels of the music industry turn slowly.
>
> > It can still take "too long" to move 16/44.1 over the
> > 'net to a whole lot of places.
>
> I may have a 3 Mb/sec internet connection, but there's a lot of 200 kb/sec
> hosts to upload to and download from.

Right. In town at the store Lanis' has a pretty snappy connection. Out
here in the woods we're lucky to have DSL at all, being a bit over the
three mile limit. Performance at home is not snappy and often disappears
when the temp rises, or kids upstream start turbobloating or whatever
it's called.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Mike Cleaver]

On Jul 11, 8:00*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>
> > > Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> > >> Mike Cleaver wrote:
>
> > >>> There is absolutely no reason for radio stations to be
> > >>> using mp3 music files these days.
>
> > >> Sure there is. That's what the music service sends them.
> > >> The wheels of the music industry turn slowly.
>
> > > It can still take "too long" to move 16/44.1 over the
> > > 'net to a whole lot of places.
>
> > I may have a 3 Mb/sec internet connection, but there's a lot of 200 kb/sec
> > hosts to upload to and download from.
>
> Right. In town at the store Lanis' has a pretty snappy connection. Out
> here in the woods we're lucky to have DSL at all, being a bit over the
> three mile limit. Performance at home is not snappy and often disappears
> when the temp rises, or kids upstream start turbobloating or whatever
> it's called.
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar *http://hankalrich.com/http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.htmlhttp://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Most of the radio stations for which I work still use cds to load the
hard drives.
Purchasing more hard drives is the same as buying tape back in the old
days.
Even the smallest stations are replacing their old smaller hard drives
with new larger ones.
Several of the largest stations which receive mp3s of commercials
actually ask for .wav files to be ftp'ed to them.
Most have very fast internet connections as well, at least here in
Canada.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

John Williamson > wrote:

> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>
> > I've discovered the secret of commercial radio compression. Making
> > operating a station board so simple a caveman could do it. (Sorry
> > GEICO!)
> >
> Or, you could just put one of these compressors in the chain before the
> transmitter:-
>
> http://www.orban.com/products/radio/
>
> Then turn up the band gains all the way, turn on all the hard limiters,
> and voila! you have the average sound of a commercial radio station as
> heard in the UK. Don't forget to leave a bit of headroom so that the
> commercials can come on even louder, though.
>
> I'm not sure what BBC Radio 1 do to make their sound even more
> objectionable, though.
>
> (Okay, I'm exaggerating *slightly*...)

Have you tried listening to BBC Radio Bristol? It has the worst sound
quality I have ever heard - like a misaligned F.M. I.F. strip and quite
unbearable.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Williamson]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Have you tried listening to BBC Radio Bristol? It has the worst sound
> quality I have ever heard - like a misaligned F.M. I.F. strip and quite
> unbearable.
>
I'm possibly fortunate there, as my local BBC station is Radio Stoke,
which sounded quite good last time I listened. Still got that
"commercial radio" sound, though, and the obligatory hordes of people in
the studio at breakfast time.

If you're listening to a transmitter for Radio Bristol other than the
main one, though, you might not be so far off as you might hope with the
sound of a misaligned IF strip, depending on how the repeater gets its
feed. They'd not be the first to use an FM receiver to feed the
repeater, and they'll not be the last.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mark]

>
> Have you tried listening to BBC Radio Bristol? *It has the worst sound
> quality I have ever heard - like a misaligned F.M. *I.F. strip and quite
> unbearable.
>
> --
> ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~

Adrian,

multipath propagation can cause a similar effect on FM especially for
stereo MPX..

Mark

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mark > wrote:

> >
> > Have you tried listening to BBC Radio Bristol? *It has the worst sound
> > quality I have ever heard - like a misaligned F.M. *I.F. strip and quite
> > unbearable.
> >
> > --
> > ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
>
> Adrian,
>
> multipath propagation can cause a similar effect on FM especially for
> stereo MPX..

I doubt if it is the cause in this particular case.

I live about 14 miles from the transmitter and have an almost
line-of-sight path from it. I have tried receiving it with various
modern stereo tuners, a germainum Sony portable and a valve Eddystone
770R (correctly aligned) - using (respectively) a three-element
horizontal Yagi-Uda in the attic, a diagonal whip aerial in a bedroom
and a vertical dipole on the roof. They all give good results on the
other stations but a terrible racket on Radio Bristol.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

John Williamson > wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > Have you tried listening to BBC Radio Bristol? It has the worst sound
> > quality I have ever heard - like a misaligned F.M. I.F. strip and quite
> > unbearable.
> >
> I'm possibly fortunate there, as my local BBC station is Radio Stoke,
> which sounded quite good last time I listened. Still got that
> "commercial radio" sound, though, and the obligatory hordes of people in
> the studio at breakfast time.
>
> If you're listening to a transmitter for Radio Bristol other than the
> main one, though, you might not be so far off as you might hope with the
> sound of a misaligned IF strip, depending on how the repeater gets its
> feed. They'd not be the first to use an FM receiver to feed the
> repeater, and they'll not be the last.

My signal is coming straight off the main transmitter on the Mendip
mast.

Some years ago the manager of Radio Bristol put out an edict that it had
to be "The loudest station on the band" - I think they are still
following it.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk