"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges, the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.

I'm not sure what the "distant" sound is that you're referring to. But as a
former commercial radio engineer, I can tell you that radio stations do
horrible things to the audio, most of them quite irreversible.

Station managers and program directors strive to create a "sound" for their
station, and many of those people have no clue about audio, so you end up
with some really bizarre effects. Most of them want it "louder" than the
other stations on the dial. They accomplish this primarily by removing as
much dynamic range as possible from the original recordings. They start with
some kind of automatic level control, usually followed by a three or
four-band compressor, followed by a one or two band limiter, usually
followed by a clipper. In addition to that, they sometimes add reverb and
"stereo enhancers" (either of which might be responsible for the "distant"
sound you describe). They often fiddle with equalization as well, usually
attempting to add more bass -- a futile exercise if they're driving the
compressor and limiter very hard. The typical result is muddy sludge.

The sad part is, if they would turn off everything but the ALC and use the
limiter sparingly, if anyone could find them among all the other noise, they
could have the cleanest, punchiest sound on the dial. It would be nearly
indistinguishable from the source material in most cases.

Karl Uppiano wrote:
"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges, the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.


I'm not sure what the "distant" sound is that you're referring to. But as a
former commercial radio engineer, I can tell you that radio stations do
horrible things to the audio, most of them quite irreversible.

Station managers and program directors strive to create a "sound" for their
station, and many of those people have no clue about audio, so you end up
with some really bizarre effects. Most of them want it "louder" than the
other stations on the dial. They accomplish this primarily by removing as
much dynamic range as possible from the original recordings. They start with
some kind of automatic level control, usually followed by a three or
four-band compressor, followed by a one or two band limiter, usually
followed by a clipper. In addition to that, they sometimes add reverb and
"stereo enhancers" (either of which might be responsible for the "distant"
sound you describe). They often fiddle with equalization as well, usually
attempting to add more bass -- a futile exercise if they're driving the
compressor and limiter very hard. The typical result is muddy sludge.

The sad part is, if they would turn off everything but the ALC and use the
limiter sparingly, if anyone could find them among all the other noise, they
could have the cleanest, punchiest sound on the dial. It would be nearly
indistinguishable from the source material in most cases.


I would assume the "distant" sound being described is caused by the
250-600HZ range being compressed/notched down to sound more "hi-fi" on
systems that aren't all that hi-fi. Lots of dash/box resonances and
other dirt occur in that range. The range obviously has to be there, but
sparingly.

I hear KISS FM Chicago puts reverb in their chain. Dear lord.

And to top it off, you will have the inescapable loss of audio data as
it is being modulated into FM stereo. FM employs some filtering which
limits your highs a little, as well as some cheating to create the
"stereo" effect (it's not actually stereo but a mono and difference
channel) since FM cannot support the entire audible range in stereo, you
get some lower fidelity. The modulation/demodulation processes at the
transmitter and receiver pretty much finish off any chance. ):

Sorry to rain on the parade, but radio's a nasty thing to music.

In article , Chuck Ritola wrote:
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"equalizing songz," wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey all,


I have hooked up my boom box to my "line in" in my computer, and then
use a song file recorder/editor to record the music as wav directly to
the hard disc.

The songs sound very close to the way they do when played from a cd,
and I don't have the heart yet to tell a couple friends that the cds I
made for them were burnt with songs recorded this way from the radio,
not downloaded or ripped from cd.

However, I would like to know if radio-source songs can be re-processed
with equalizers, to remove or hide that slightly "distant" sound that
radio-recorded songs have, and maybe make it sound more like it came
directly from a cd...?

So far, after a long night of loudness, and playing with midranges, the
best sound yet seems to be merely increasing the gain to just below the
level of buzzing. But that slightly "distant" sound is still there.

I was thinking maybe the distance effect is just the stereo signal the
song came through, and perhaps mixing the radio wav file down to mono
(with a few other boosts) will make the song sound more like it came
straight off a cd?

thanks in advance for your answer and any other options you may know
of.


I'm not sure what the "distant" sound is that you're referring to. But as a
former commercial radio engineer, I can tell you that radio stations do
horrible things to the audio, most of them quite irreversible.

Station managers and program directors strive to create a "sound" for their
station, and many of those people have no clue about audio, so you end up
with some really bizarre effects. Most of them want it "louder" than the
other stations on the dial. They accomplish this primarily by removing as
much dynamic range as possible from the original recordings. They start with
some kind of automatic level control, usually followed by a three or
four-band compressor, followed by a one or two band limiter, usually
followed by a clipper. In addition to that, they sometimes add reverb and
"stereo enhancers" (either of which might be responsible for the "distant"
sound you describe). They often fiddle with equalization as well, usually
attempting to add more bass -- a futile exercise if they're driving the
compressor and limiter very hard. The typical result is muddy sludge.

The sad part is, if they would turn off everything but the ALC and use the
limiter sparingly, if anyone could find them among all the other noise, they
could have the cleanest, punchiest sound on the dial. It would be nearly
indistinguishable from the source material in most cases.


I would assume the "distant" sound being described is caused by the
250-600HZ range being compressed/notched down to sound more "hi-fi" on
systems that aren't all that hi-fi. Lots of dash/box resonances and
other dirt occur in that range. The range obviously has to be there, but
sparingly.

Not sure, but radio stations have been using 3 band compressors, so the balance of the orginal
is going to be off. I have used peak unlimiters to increase peak levels, or dynamic range.
Phase Linear used to make them as well as DBX, and I used one that I
built. I would use it to listen to radio stations. I don't know about new releases. There is
so much compression on CD's and plus the FM. An equalizer can be used
to cut back the lows and adjust so it sounds a little better.


greg


I hear KISS FM Chicago puts reverb in their chain. Dear lord.

And to top it off, you will have the inescapable loss of audio data as
it is being modulated into FM stereo. FM employs some filtering which
limits your highs a little, as well as some cheating to create the
"stereo" effect (it's not actually stereo but a mono and difference
channel) since FM cannot support the entire audible range in stereo, you
get some lower fidelity. The modulation/demodulation processes at the
transmitter and receiver pretty much finish off any chance. ):

Sorry to rain on the parade, but radio's a nasty thing to music.

And to top it off, you will have the inescapable loss of audio data as it
is being modulated into FM stereo. FM employs some filtering which limits
your highs a little, as well as some cheating to create the "stereo"
effect (it's not actually stereo but a mono and difference channel) since
FM cannot support the entire audible range in stereo, you get some lower
fidelity. The modulation/demodulation processes at the transmitter and
receiver pretty much finish off any chance. ):

I have to differ with you here. FM stereo is true stereo just as vinyl is
true stereo or CD audio is true stereo. Each technology uses some form of
encoding to transport two channels from one place to another using a single
channel.

FM and vinyl both use sum and difference encoding, which is as lossless as
the channel itself. CD audio digitally encodes stereo on a single
datastream. In the case of FM, the sum and difference can be generated
either by direct modulation of a main carrier (L + R) and a subcarrier (L -
R), or by using the mathematically equivalent alternate sampling of the left
and right channels at 38 KHz. 16 KHz anti-aliasing and reconstruction
filters are necessary with either approach. In 40+ years of FM stereo
broadcasting, these filters have rarely been the subject of much serious
concern - certainly not compared to the reverb, AGC, compression, limiting
and intentional clipping inflicted by managers, program directors, and even
some misguided engineers.

FCC standards require commercial FM stations to provide 15 KHz minimum audio
bandwidth, so the stereo standard was established as a 38 KHz sample rate
with a 19 KHz pilot, which was considered quite adequate to meet the same
standard in stereo. If the engineers at the FCC in the early 60's had set
the standard at 44.1 KHz sample rate with a 22.05 KHz pilot, FM stereo
bandwidth would be exactly the same as CD audio.

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JF6of.16097$Ea6.6088@trnddc08...
FCC standards require commercial FM stations to provide 15 KHz minimum
audio
bandwidth, so the stereo standard was established as a 38 KHz sample rate
with a 19 KHz pilot, which was considered quite adequate to meet the same
standard in stereo. If the engineers at the FCC in the early 60's had set
the standard at 44.1 KHz sample rate with a 22.05 KHz pilot, FM stereo
bandwidth would be exactly the same as CD audio.


Indeed !
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

........... Zed

Zed wrote:
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

Ask an audiologist. I presume this is well-established.

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Zed wrote:
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

Ask an audiologist. I presume this is well-established.

10 to 20 kHz depending on age (higher if you're younger).

"mc" wrote in message
...

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Zed wrote:
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

Ask an audiologist. I presume this is well-established.

10 to 20 kHz depending on age (higher if you're younger).

When I was younger, I could hear out to about 18 kHz. It doesn't mean that
an audio source that was "limited" to 15 KHz would sound as if it was
obviously deficient, however.

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Zed wrote:
But what is the "bandwidth" of the average human ear !!

Ask an audiologist. I presume this is well-established.

In the 50's and early 60's the range of human hearing was commonly quoted as
30 Hz to 15 KHz (or 30 cps to 15,000 cps to use the terminology of the day).
Some time in the late 60's to early 70's the range of 20 Hz to 20 KHz became
more common, maybe because it's easier to remember. Not that the
characteristics of the human ear changed, mind you. It's a rubber ruler no
matter how you look at it. I could probably hear 10 Hz it if was loud
enough, and I could probably hear 20 KHz if it was loud enough. It has more
to do with where they decide to draw the line, and of course, marketing.

"Chuck Ritola" wrote in message news:SxZnf.6065
since FM cannot support the entire audible range in stereo, you
get some lower fidelity. The modulation/demodulation processes at the
transmitter and receiver pretty much finish off any chance. ):

Sorry to rain on the parade, but radio's a nasty thing to music.

and if it weren't for radio, you wouldn't hear any new music
or even know that it existed, no ?

Maybe you might hear the odd new tune at a club,
but you woulkdn't necessarily know what or who it was.

a.m. radio is even worse for fidelity, but many ( most )
listeners are tuning into that for music. so in your
estimation then, a.m. radio is an abomination is it ?

use radio for what it is, it has it's strengths and
waeknesses, like everything else. I can't carry
100s of diamond hand-cut vinyl discs, and a
personal DJ in the back of the car, or on the
train or the bus.

listen.

make a note of artist / song.

buy a CD or vinyl disc later.

if you must, record the radio,
and process away to your
heart's content !

just be aware that to get the best
quality legally you MUST BUY.

if you are prepared to put up with
less than the "best", and many are,
then carry on regardless.

;-)

............. Lloyd George

You make some points, but:

a.m. radio is even worse for fidelity, but many ( most )
listeners are tuning into that for music. so in your
estimation then, a.m. radio is an abomination is it ?

Just out of curiosity, what part of the world are you in? There's virtually
no music on AM in the USA. Is there still a good bit in Britain?

Actually, rather high-fidelity AM is possible, though rare. At the
transmitter end, you need to demodulate the transmitted signal and include
it in the audio feedback loop, so you're controlling what actually goes out
on the air rather than just what goes to the modulator. At the receiver
end, you need wide bandwidth, much wider than we normally have. An AM radio
can be aligned for high fidelity by first doing a conventional alignment,
and then tuning alternate IF transformers somewhat high and low. The signal
gets weaker but has a lot more treble.

Fifty years ago, hi-fi AM enthusiasts used TRF rather than superheterodyne
tuners (and could only get strong local signals, but they sounded very
good). If there were music on the local AM stations, I'd experiment with
that myself.

One big reason hi-fi AM hasn't caught on is that AM is noise-prone. FM can
exclude noise; AM can't.

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

mc wrote:

snip

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

It is still another proof that one cannot polish a turd.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote in message
...
mc wrote:

snip

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

It is still another proof that one cannot polish a turd.

I disagree with that statement. When I was a broadcast engineer, one of the
stations I worked for was AM. The entire transmitting system was capable of
15KHz audio. It sounded just like monophonic FM on the modulation monitor.
Unfortunately, radios that can adequately demodulate hi-fi AM are more
expensive, so there seems to be little market demand for them. Hi-fi stereo
AM is technically feasible, but its time is probably past. Most AM
broadcasters in the US have gone to all-talk formats, where hi-fi and stereo
are relatively unimportant.

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti" wrote in message
...
mc wrote:

snip

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

It is still another proof that one cannot polish a turd.

I disagree with that statement. When I was a broadcast engineer, one of the
stations I worked for was AM. The entire transmitting system was capable of
15KHz audio. It sounded just like monophonic FM on the modulation monitor.

Was this station in the USA? What is/was its call sign?

snip

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

"mc" wrote in message
...

BTW, what ever became of AM stereo?

Last heard of in South Africa & Zimbabwe AFAIK
the left and right channels had seperate carriers,
and you needed either a fancy, double tuner
radio reciever ( for your living room setup )
or you could just tune in two transistor radios
( one for each channel ).

.......... Lloyd