| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:22:59 -0800, Robert Orban
wrote: Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Don -- I'm sorry you're cross with me. However, I presume that you understand that the FM channel does not have an infinite signal-to-noise ratio. Eliminating all forms of protection processing will cause many potential listeners of a given radio station to be unable to enjoy that station because quiet parts of the program are contaminated by noise. "Turning up the volume control" also turns up the noise and hence, does not address the problem. In the days of monophonic FM and outdoor aerials, this was less of a problem. However, FM stereo introduced a noise penalty of approximately 20 dB, and few people use outddor aerials anymore. All DSP-based FM Optimods, BTW, offer the ability to configure the unit for various forms of "purist" processing. The most purist of these offers protection limiting that introduces no compression at all with normal input levels, and only does the amount of HF limiting and peak limiting necessary to protect the channel from overdeviation. Bob Orban Is there anybody left in the industry with the slightest idea of exactly how much signal to noise ratio an FM channel actually has? It has more than enough by many tens of dBs to cope with any pop record released in the last twenty years. It also has vastly more than any piece of vinyl *ever* released, and it has plenty enough for any classical recording. So the lack of dynamic range argument is a non-starter. As for protecting channels from overdeviation, it is a regulatory requirement that transmitters contain such protection - they don't need Optimod for that, and anyway that is what the engineer is for. No, Optimod is a tool seized upon by cheap and nasty radio stations (and yes, I know that is most of them) for making themselves as noisy and obnoxious as possible in order to stand out and appeal to the lowest common denominator in the market. Now I'm sure that is a plan of sorts, and I can't knock it. But never try to claim that it has anything to do with quality. If you want quality you just leave out all these extraneous bits - radio does not need them. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:48:45 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote: You seem to imply that there might be some right hands for an Optimod. Of course there are - those of a scrap metal dealer. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com I'd be disagreein'' with that. Ty Ford I've listened to your audio samples, and I'm not surprised. Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Why Don. What a snotty reply. Since I'm sure you know close to zip about what I do with audio, save the snot for yourself in future. I don't need it and this group doesn't deserve it. The 8100 in the right hands is quite nice, folks. Regards, Ty Ford TY, my comment was purely in reference to your published samples - not your other work which as far as I know may be very good. But what you put on your web site does indeed lead me to the conclusion that you would like the sound of Optimod, since it is highly artificial in nature. Now maybe you really do believe that everybody should like to hear voices presented that way - and maybe I am indeed alone in the group in preferring a natural human voice - but don't think for one moment that this places you above criticism. And I'm sure that the group can speak for itself if it feels offended by my preference for fidelity over punch. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:48:45 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote: You seem to imply that there might be some right hands for an Optimod. Of course there are - those of a scrap metal dealer. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com I'd be disagreein'' with that. Ty Ford I've listened to your audio samples, and I'm not surprised. Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Why Don. What a snotty reply. Since I'm sure you know close to zip about what I do with audio, save the snot for yourself in future. I don't need it and this group doesn't deserve it. The 8100 in the right hands is quite nice, folks. Regards, Ty Ford TY, my comment was purely in reference to your published samples - not your other work which as far as I know may be very good. But what you put on your web site does indeed lead me to the conclusion that you would like the sound of Optimod, since it is highly artificial in nature. Now maybe you really do believe that everybody should like to hear voices presented that way - and maybe I am indeed alone in the group in preferring a natural human voice - but don't think for one moment that this places you above criticism. And I'm sure that the group can speak for itself if it feels offended by my preference for fidelity over punch. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 03:09:45 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ): On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:48:45 -0400, Ty Ford wrote: You seem to imply that there might be some right hands for an Optimod. Of course there are - those of a scrap metal dealer. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com I'd be disagreein'' with that. Ty Ford I've listened to your audio samples, and I'm not surprised. Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Why Don. What a snotty reply. Since I'm sure you know close to zip about what I do with audio, save the snot for yourself in future. I don't need it and this group doesn't deserve it. The 8100 in the right hands is quite nice, folks. Regards, Ty Ford TY, my comment was purely in reference to your published samples - not your other work which as far as I know may be very good. But what you put on your web site does indeed lead me to the conclusion that you would like the sound of Optimod, since it is highly artificial in nature. Now maybe you really do believe that everybody should like to hear voices presented that way - and maybe I am indeed alone in the group in preferring a natural human voice - but don't think for one moment that this places you above criticism. And I'm sure that the group can speak for itself if it feels offended by my preference for fidelity over punch. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Dear Don, You're making broad judgements based on MP3 files? Curious. Again, having had some experience with the Optimod 8000 and 8100 (as well as other processors normally used and abused on air) it's still up to the individual to determine the degree of use and/or abuse. I support your comment if its basis is that broadcast facilities typically overprocess the audio. That basis, however, was not made apparent in your comments. My problem is that instead of discussing the issue, you chose to attack me professionally based on what amounts to a polaroid snapshot of audio (MP3) designed for purposes other than fidelity. That's quite a jump in logic. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 03:09:45 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ): On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:48:45 -0400, Ty Ford wrote: You seem to imply that there might be some right hands for an Optimod. Of course there are - those of a scrap metal dealer. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com I'd be disagreein'' with that. Ty Ford I've listened to your audio samples, and I'm not surprised. Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Why Don. What a snotty reply. Since I'm sure you know close to zip about what I do with audio, save the snot for yourself in future. I don't need it and this group doesn't deserve it. The 8100 in the right hands is quite nice, folks. Regards, Ty Ford TY, my comment was purely in reference to your published samples - not your other work which as far as I know may be very good. But what you put on your web site does indeed lead me to the conclusion that you would like the sound of Optimod, since it is highly artificial in nature. Now maybe you really do believe that everybody should like to hear voices presented that way - and maybe I am indeed alone in the group in preferring a natural human voice - but don't think for one moment that this places you above criticism. And I'm sure that the group can speak for itself if it feels offended by my preference for fidelity over punch. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Dear Don, You're making broad judgements based on MP3 files? Curious. Again, having had some experience with the Optimod 8000 and 8100 (as well as other processors normally used and abused on air) it's still up to the individual to determine the degree of use and/or abuse. I support your comment if its basis is that broadcast facilities typically overprocess the audio. That basis, however, was not made apparent in your comments. My problem is that instead of discussing the issue, you chose to attack me professionally based on what amounts to a polaroid snapshot of audio (MP3) designed for purposes other than fidelity. That's quite a jump in logic. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 03:04:47 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ): No, Optimod is a tool seized upon by cheap and nasty radio stations (and yes, I know that is most of them) for making themselves as noisy and obnoxious as possible in order to stand out and appeal to the lowest common denominator in the market. Now I'm sure that is a plan of sorts, and I can't knock it. But never try to claim that it has anything to do with quality. If you want quality you just leave out all these extraneous bits - radio does not need them. Again, when misused, this is correct. When used correctly, this is not correct. Many expensive and not-so-nasty radio stations also over-process, some with an optimod, some with other devices. There is a compelling reason in area where automotive radio listening is important. Typically, the road noise obscures the lower level passages of non-dynamically reduced audio. If you turn up the car radio to hear the lower levels of the 1812 Overture, you doors will be blown off when the cannons fire. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 03:04:47 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ): No, Optimod is a tool seized upon by cheap and nasty radio stations (and yes, I know that is most of them) for making themselves as noisy and obnoxious as possible in order to stand out and appeal to the lowest common denominator in the market. Now I'm sure that is a plan of sorts, and I can't knock it. But never try to claim that it has anything to do with quality. If you want quality you just leave out all these extraneous bits - radio does not need them. Again, when misused, this is correct. When used correctly, this is not correct. Many expensive and not-so-nasty radio stations also over-process, some with an optimod, some with other devices. There is a compelling reason in area where automotive radio listening is important. Typically, the road noise obscures the lower level passages of non-dynamically reduced audio. If you turn up the car radio to hear the lower levels of the 1812 Overture, you doors will be blown off when the cannons fire. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:27:32 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote: TY, my comment was purely in reference to your published samples - not your other work which as far as I know may be very good. But what you put on your web site does indeed lead me to the conclusion that you would like the sound of Optimod, since it is highly artificial in nature. Now maybe you really do believe that everybody should like to hear voices presented that way - and maybe I am indeed alone in the group in preferring a natural human voice - but don't think for one moment that this places you above criticism. And I'm sure that the group can speak for itself if it feels offended by my preference for fidelity over punch. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Dear Don, You're making broad judgements based on MP3 files? Curious. Again, having had some experience with the Optimod 8000 and 8100 (as well as other processors normally used and abused on air) it's still up to the individual to determine the degree of use and/or abuse. I support your comment if its basis is that broadcast facilities typically overprocess the audio. That basis, however, was not made apparent in your comments. My problem is that instead of discussing the issue, you chose to attack me professionally based on what amounts to a polaroid snapshot of audio (MP3) designed for purposes other than fidelity. That's quite a jump in logic. Regards, Ty Ford The attack wasn't really meant personally but against an industry generally that values punch, apparent volume or whatever over a faithful representation of the human voice. With music, I am happy for artistic license to have its say, but with voice I simply won't have it - it is too personal. In my view there is no such thing as over-processing of voice, there is simply processing and it is all anathema. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:27:32 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote: TY, my comment was purely in reference to your published samples - not your other work which as far as I know may be very good. But what you put on your web site does indeed lead me to the conclusion that you would like the sound of Optimod, since it is highly artificial in nature. Now maybe you really do believe that everybody should like to hear voices presented that way - and maybe I am indeed alone in the group in preferring a natural human voice - but don't think for one moment that this places you above criticism. And I'm sure that the group can speak for itself if it feels offended by my preference for fidelity over punch. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Dear Don, You're making broad judgements based on MP3 files? Curious. Again, having had some experience with the Optimod 8000 and 8100 (as well as other processors normally used and abused on air) it's still up to the individual to determine the degree of use and/or abuse. I support your comment if its basis is that broadcast facilities typically overprocess the audio. That basis, however, was not made apparent in your comments. My problem is that instead of discussing the issue, you chose to attack me professionally based on what amounts to a polaroid snapshot of audio (MP3) designed for purposes other than fidelity. That's quite a jump in logic. Regards, Ty Ford The attack wasn't really meant personally but against an industry generally that values punch, apparent volume or whatever over a faithful representation of the human voice. With music, I am happy for artistic license to have its say, but with voice I simply won't have it - it is too personal. In my view there is no such thing as over-processing of voice, there is simply processing and it is all anathema. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Pearce" wrote
Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective. Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon? Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better make sure they hear it the first time. Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio, most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse. Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering the dreaded "Whadeesay?" -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Pearce" wrote
Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective. Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon? Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better make sure they hear it the first time. Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio, most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse. Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering the dreaded "Whadeesay?" -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Oct 2004 10:29:50 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
In article writes: Is there anybody left in the industry with the slightest idea of exactly how much signal to noise ratio an FM channel actually has? It has more than enough by many tens of dBs to cope with any pop record released in the last twenty years. A red herring for sure. You only need about 10 dB of dynamic range for that. A cassette recorder with no noise reduction has snough dynamic range to cope with any pop record released in the last 20 years too. This is a function of the record, not the transport medium. Agreed - I was responding to Orban's claim that Optimods had something to do with the limited available dynamic range of FM radio - ******** for sure. As for protecting channels from overdeviation, it is a regulatory requirement that transmitters contain such protection - they don't need Optimod for that, and anyway that is what the engineer is for. What engineer? The engineer is the guy who sets up the transmitter and dynamics processor so the studio owner won't get fined, and then he goes fishing. Good old quality control you know. If a radio station isn't prepared to maintain a decent standard of quality, then it has no business being on the air. If the engineer has gone fishing, fire him and go on firing them until you find one who enjoys engineering more than fishing. No, Optimod is a tool seized upon by cheap and nasty radio stations (and yes, I know that is most of them) for making themselves as noisy and obnoxious as possible in order to stand out and appeal to the lowest common denominator in the market. So attack the stations, not the maker of the tool they use. I still use a box cutter even though one was blamed for starting our War on Terror. Ah! The old "its not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people" argument. Sorry, I don't buy it.If there weren't any Optimods, people wouldn't abuse them - and I use the term advisedly because abuse is the only use I have ever heard. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:56:38 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective. Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon? Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better make sure they hear it the first time. Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio, most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse. Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering the dreaded "Whadeesay?" Don't be silly - you know perfectly well I was referring to the quality of the voice, not the content. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:56:38 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective. Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon? Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better make sure they hear it the first time. Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio, most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse. Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering the dreaded "Whadeesay?" Don't be silly - you know perfectly well I was referring to the quality of the voice, not the content. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Oct 2004 15:37:29 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
In article writes: What engineer? The engineer is the guy who sets up the transmitter and dynamics processor so the studio owner won't get fined, and then he goes fishing. Good old quality control you know. If a radio station isn't prepared to maintain a decent standard of quality, then it has no business being on the air. If the engineer has gone fishing, fire him and go on firing them until you find one who enjoys engineering more than fishing. They don't even require a meter reading test for a DJ license any more. There may not even be a DJ license (3rd class commercial) now. But, hey, I don't think that people who can't sing on pitch acceptably or can't play a guitar solo or sing with proper emotional phrasing and diction without doing it a phrase at a time should be making records either. I would agree to this if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly how Dusty Springfield used to record - virtually every word was punched. But I've heard some original unpunched tracks, and they sounded great; she was just that much of a perfectionist. Ah! The old "its not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people" argument. Sorry, I don't buy it.If there weren't any Optimods, people wouldn't abuse them - and I use the term advisedly because abuse is the only use I have ever heard. If we didn't have recorders, maybe we'd listen to more live music, too. And in venues small enough so that we wouldn't need PA systems to abuse. Now you've got it!!! d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Oct 2004 15:37:29 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
In article writes: What engineer? The engineer is the guy who sets up the transmitter and dynamics processor so the studio owner won't get fined, and then he goes fishing. Good old quality control you know. If a radio station isn't prepared to maintain a decent standard of quality, then it has no business being on the air. If the engineer has gone fishing, fire him and go on firing them until you find one who enjoys engineering more than fishing. They don't even require a meter reading test for a DJ license any more. There may not even be a DJ license (3rd class commercial) now. But, hey, I don't think that people who can't sing on pitch acceptably or can't play a guitar solo or sing with proper emotional phrasing and diction without doing it a phrase at a time should be making records either. I would agree to this if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly how Dusty Springfield used to record - virtually every word was punched. But I've heard some original unpunched tracks, and they sounded great; she was just that much of a perfectionist. Ah! The old "its not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people" argument. Sorry, I don't buy it.If there weren't any Optimods, people wouldn't abuse them - and I use the term advisedly because abuse is the only use I have ever heard. If we didn't have recorders, maybe we'd listen to more live music, too. And in venues small enough so that we wouldn't need PA systems to abuse. Now you've got it!!! d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1096629497k@trad...
In article writes: Agreed, since the Tx is limited to 75 kHz deviation, there is effectivley processing betwen the pre-emphasis and de-emphais resulting in a roll off at high freq when things are driven hard. So don't do that! Scott's point is that you can make a broadcast processor sound bad by using it in the wrong way, and if you use it properly, it sounds fine. I believe thats what I said in the next paragrahp of my post about how good NPR sounds. Thanks for the agreement. Mark |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1096629497k@trad...
In article writes: Agreed, since the Tx is limited to 75 kHz deviation, there is effectivley processing betwen the pre-emphasis and de-emphais resulting in a roll off at high freq when things are driven hard. So don't do that! Scott's point is that you can make a broadcast processor sound bad by using it in the wrong way, and if you use it properly, it sounds fine. I believe thats what I said in the next paragrahp of my post about how good NPR sounds. Thanks for the agreement. Mark |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK - here's the 'fix' - step #1 ...
dump the old analog gear, the hardest thing to do ... step #2 : get something like Cool Edit Pro ( I use Audacity ) - - for commercials you need "dynamic compression" - which is more like a digital controlled 'expander' - let me explain ... First, all the compression, and limiting in the world will simply reduce the overload point and flatten the dynamic range ... What we use these days is digital software that samples far beyond the CD rate of 44,100 and 192K provides far more digital resolution than any station can play back ... The dynamic compression simply looks at the waveform, which can have peaks at say -6DB MAX, and simply expands the volume of each slice near that pre-set peak, depending on the settings ... so the result is that "full" sound we all want, but it's more about expanding and increasing volume on the lower peaks than changing any of the 'high' peaks, so the upper range of the digital audio is the same, only 'fuller' ... In the online 'demo #4' I tried to really push the distortion to the peak - the voice-over is at +3 db, the music and subliminal (!) track is at -6db, so there is a 9 db separation - admittedly it sounds (nearly) to distortion, and usually I make sure I'm at least -3db on any peaks, period ... See what an old laptop and software can do - my studio fills a suitcase, with lots of mics, cables, patch cords, headphones, etc - and I can do 36 tracks at 192K sample rate - right at the client's office/store 'on-the-spot' - as well as mixdown/edit with a large variety of pre-recorded music 'beds' from my 2 casio keyboards ... no prob ... forget the radio production room, and the big multitrack studio too - dump the old analog gear while you still can ... Joe http://www.astoriamovies.com (demos above) --- Robert Orban wrote in message ... In article , says... On 30 Sep 2004 09:11:53 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Don Pearce wrote: You seem to imply that there might be some right hands for an Optimod. Of course there are - those of a scrap metal dealer. The older Optimods are actually pretty good. If you disable the gate on them and set them up well, they can give you a little bit of extra level without being aggressive or problematic in any way. In terms of actually being able to get the modulation level up without overshoot, the Optimods do a better job than anything that came before them. Going from an Audimax/Volumax combination to an Optimod 8100 is amazing in that you can increase the transmitter modulation considerably with a decrease in perceived distortion. The problem comes when people try to do abusive things, like cranking the compression ratios on the Optimod way higher than is appropriate for mere gainriding, and start hammering the limiters. Or abusive things like putting three racks worth of multiband compressors in front of the Optimod. Honestly, the old 8100 is a good choice for a minimally processed classical or jazz station today... and the Optimod _can_ be used with minimal processing. It's a tool, and it's a tool that is often horribly abused by engineers trying to make things massively louder and destroying sound quality, but don't blame the tool for the Loudness Wars. --scott You reply goes to the heart of what is wrong with Optimod, and all things like it. As a listener, if I need a bit of extra level, I can turn up my volume control. If it is too loud, I can turn it down. I certainly don't want some godawful machine doing it for me. Pop music generally sounds best the way the producer left it, and classical sounds best completely uncompressed - there is no reason for a radio station to do any level processing at all. As for the spoken word, even the least amount of compressions sounds totally pants. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Don -- I'm sorry you're cross with me. However, I presume that you understand that the FM channel does not have an infinite signal-to-noise ratio. Eliminating all forms of protection processing will cause many potential listeners of a given radio station to be unable to enjoy that station because quiet parts of the program are contaminated by noise. "Turning up the volume control" also turns up the noise and hence, does not address the problem. In the days of monophonic FM and outdoor aerials, this was less of a problem. However, FM stereo introduced a noise penalty of approximately 20 dB, and few people use outddor aerials anymore. All DSP-based FM Optimods, BTW, offer the ability to configure the unit for various forms of "purist" processing. The most purist of these offers protection limiting that introduces no compression at all with normal input levels, and only does the amount of HF limiting and peak limiting necessary to protect the channel from overdeviation. Bob Orban |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK - here's the 'fix' - step #1 ...
dump the old analog gear, the hardest thing to do ... step #2 : get something like Cool Edit Pro ( I use Audacity ) - - for commercials you need "dynamic compression" - which is more like a digital controlled 'expander' - let me explain ... First, all the compression, and limiting in the world will simply reduce the overload point and flatten the dynamic range ... What we use these days is digital software that samples far beyond the CD rate of 44,100 and 192K provides far more digital resolution than any station can play back ... The dynamic compression simply looks at the waveform, which can have peaks at say -6DB MAX, and simply expands the volume of each slice near that pre-set peak, depending on the settings ... so the result is that "full" sound we all want, but it's more about expanding and increasing volume on the lower peaks than changing any of the 'high' peaks, so the upper range of the digital audio is the same, only 'fuller' ... In the online 'demo #4' I tried to really push the distortion to the peak - the voice-over is at +3 db, the music and subliminal (!) track is at -6db, so there is a 9 db separation - admittedly it sounds (nearly) to distortion, and usually I make sure I'm at least -3db on any peaks, period ... See what an old laptop and software can do - my studio fills a suitcase, with lots of mics, cables, patch cords, headphones, etc - and I can do 36 tracks at 192K sample rate - right at the client's office/store 'on-the-spot' - as well as mixdown/edit with a large variety of pre-recorded music 'beds' from my 2 casio keyboards ... no prob ... forget the radio production room, and the big multitrack studio too - dump the old analog gear while you still can ... Joe http://www.astoriamovies.com (demos above) --- Robert Orban wrote in message ... In article , says... On 30 Sep 2004 09:11:53 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Don Pearce wrote: You seem to imply that there might be some right hands for an Optimod. Of course there are - those of a scrap metal dealer. The older Optimods are actually pretty good. If you disable the gate on them and set them up well, they can give you a little bit of extra level without being aggressive or problematic in any way. In terms of actually being able to get the modulation level up without overshoot, the Optimods do a better job than anything that came before them. Going from an Audimax/Volumax combination to an Optimod 8100 is amazing in that you can increase the transmitter modulation considerably with a decrease in perceived distortion. The problem comes when people try to do abusive things, like cranking the compression ratios on the Optimod way higher than is appropriate for mere gainriding, and start hammering the limiters. Or abusive things like putting three racks worth of multiband compressors in front of the Optimod. Honestly, the old 8100 is a good choice for a minimally processed classical or jazz station today... and the Optimod _can_ be used with minimal processing. It's a tool, and it's a tool that is often horribly abused by engineers trying to make things massively louder and destroying sound quality, but don't blame the tool for the Loudness Wars. --scott You reply goes to the heart of what is wrong with Optimod, and all things like it. As a listener, if I need a bit of extra level, I can turn up my volume control. If it is too loud, I can turn it down. I certainly don't want some godawful machine doing it for me. Pop music generally sounds best the way the producer left it, and classical sounds best completely uncompressed - there is no reason for a radio station to do any level processing at all. As for the spoken word, even the least amount of compressions sounds totally pants. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Don -- I'm sorry you're cross with me. However, I presume that you understand that the FM channel does not have an infinite signal-to-noise ratio. Eliminating all forms of protection processing will cause many potential listeners of a given radio station to be unable to enjoy that station because quiet parts of the program are contaminated by noise. "Turning up the volume control" also turns up the noise and hence, does not address the problem. In the days of monophonic FM and outdoor aerials, this was less of a problem. However, FM stereo introduced a noise penalty of approximately 20 dB, and few people use outddor aerials anymore. All DSP-based FM Optimods, BTW, offer the ability to configure the unit for various forms of "purist" processing. The most purist of these offers protection limiting that introduces no compression at all with normal input levels, and only does the amount of HF limiting and peak limiting necessary to protect the channel from overdeviation. Bob Orban |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would agree to this if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly
how Dusty Springfield used to record - virtually every word was punched. But I've heard some original unpunched tracks, and they sounded great; she was just that much of a perfectionist. BRBR Same with Streisand, who has the ability to sing great, but wants the ability to obsess over every single syllable. Lots & lots of takes & lots & lots of comping. Scott Fraser |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would agree to this if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly
how Dusty Springfield used to record - virtually every word was punched. But I've heard some original unpunched tracks, and they sounded great; she was just that much of a perfectionist. BRBR Same with Streisand, who has the ability to sing great, but wants the ability to obsess over every single syllable. Lots & lots of takes & lots & lots of comping. Scott Fraser |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:53:52 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ): In my view there is no such thing as over-processing of voice, there is simply processing and it is all anathema. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You must be a very unhappy person in this world today.  Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:53:52 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ): In my view there is no such thing as over-processing of voice, there is simply processing and it is all anathema. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You must be a very unhappy person in this world today. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:56:38 -0400, Lorin David Schultz wrote
(in article Gee7d.6584$223.3967@edtnps89): "Don Pearce" wrote Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective. Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon? Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better make sure they hear it the first time. Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio, most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse. Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering the dreaded "Whadeesay?" There's a compelling statement (no aphex hype intended). When recording normal humans (as opposed to VO pros or actors) I never cease to be amazed at how different voices are. The tendency to drop off at the end of each sentence as the lungs empty is often a problem. Even in mixing vocals for music projects, I find that fixing the vocal track involves boosting a word or phrase here and there to make the words audible. Don, I'm guessing that you may also like your printed word the same unadulterated way. When I do an interview for an article, I usually send the words back so they interviewee can take his/her foot out of his/her mouth. Other writers I know absolutely will not change anything. "They said it. I'm printing it!" My experience is that people frequently talk out of their butts, myself included. The point is (for me) to present the information in the best way to the reader. If that means restating, then that's OK. Then there's the idea that no mic/preamp can actually capture the voice with absolute fidelity. What do you use and why? What limitations do you encounter? Regards, Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:56:38 -0400, Lorin David Schultz wrote
(in article Gee7d.6584$223.3967@edtnps89): "Don Pearce" wrote Try listening to what real people sound like for a bit, and strive for that instead - you may be pleasantly surprised. I spend a lot of time listening to what real people sound like, and I can tell you that I will NOT be making that *my* objective. Listen to a casual conversation between any two people, and see how many times words are missed or mis-heard ("What? Sorry? I beg your pardon? Say again? You watched VD last night? What's VD? Oh, TV!!!") That's face-to-face, where it's easy to repeat a missed word. I don't have the luxury of having the talent repeat what a listener missed, so I better make sure they hear it the first time. Add to the equation that my audience may be cooking, cleaning or doing other distracting things while my show is on (or, in the case of radio, most likely driving) and the problem becomes much worse. Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering the dreaded "Whadeesay?" There's a compelling statement (no aphex hype intended). When recording normal humans (as opposed to VO pros or actors) I never cease to be amazed at how different voices are. The tendency to drop off at the end of each sentence as the lungs empty is often a problem. Even in mixing vocals for music projects, I find that fixing the vocal track involves boosting a word or phrase here and there to make the words audible. Don, I'm guessing that you may also like your printed word the same unadulterated way. When I do an interview for an article, I usually send the words back so they interviewee can take his/her foot out of his/her mouth. Other writers I know absolutely will not change anything. "They said it. I'm printing it!" My experience is that people frequently talk out of their butts, myself included. The point is (for me) to present the information in the best way to the reader. If that means restating, then that's OK. Then there's the idea that no mic/preamp can actually capture the voice with absolute fidelity. What do you use and why? What limitations do you encounter? Regards, Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering the dreaded "Whadeesay?" Don't be silly - you know perfectly well I was referring to the quality of the voice, not the content. Hmm, for me the ability or lack thereof of the voice to maintain level is part of the quality of the voice; voice as instrument. Guess it could be construed as the performance rather than the voice. But you're still against processing. So how do you rationalize the performance variations? Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Healthy levels of compression help make sure my audience isn't muttering the dreaded "Whadeesay?" Don't be silly - you know perfectly well I was referring to the quality of the voice, not the content. Hmm, for me the ability or lack thereof of the voice to maintain level is part of the quality of the voice; voice as instrument. Guess it could be construed as the performance rather than the voice. But you're still against processing. So how do you rationalize the performance variations? Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:19:05 -0400, Joe Altieri wrote
(in article ) : OK - here's the 'fix' - step #1 ... dump the old analog gear, the hardest thing to do ... step #2 : get something like Cool Edit Pro ( I use Audacity ) - - for commercials you need "dynamic compression" - which is more like a digital controlled 'expander' - let me explain ... First, all the compression, and limiting in the world will simply reduce the overload point and flatten the dynamic range ... What we use these days is digital software that samples far beyond the CD rate of 44,100 and 192K provides far more digital resolution than any station can play back ... Well that can be said of most live operatic performances. Most of the ones recorded onto LP or CD have been gain reduced so they fit within the Usable Dynamic Range of the media or medium. Video and film are similar in that they can't really capture differences in light across as wide a spectrum as the human eye. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:19:05 -0400, Joe Altieri wrote
(in article ) : OK - here's the 'fix' - step #1 ... dump the old analog gear, the hardest thing to do ... step #2 : get something like Cool Edit Pro ( I use Audacity ) - - for commercials you need "dynamic compression" - which is more like a digital controlled 'expander' - let me explain ... First, all the compression, and limiting in the world will simply reduce the overload point and flatten the dynamic range ... What we use these days is digital software that samples far beyond the CD rate of 44,100 and 192K provides far more digital resolution than any station can play back ... Well that can be said of most live operatic performances. Most of the ones recorded onto LP or CD have been gain reduced so they fit within the Usable Dynamic Range of the media or medium. Video and film are similar in that they can't really capture differences in light across as wide a spectrum as the human eye. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
But you're still against processing. So how do you rationalize the performance variations? I tend to be against processing as much as possible, and in the case of broadcast work I think the performance variations are just part of what make things interesting. But, because FM does have limited dynamic range (and the truth is that the dynamic range when you have full quieting is excellent, but out in a fringe area it can be pretty poor), and as a result gain riding at least is needed. It's true that compression on FM buys you a lot less in terms of improved service area than it does with AM, since the FM capture phenomenon means there is really only a narrow range of signal strength between full quieting and no reception at all. If you're against manual gain riding, that's one thing. But if you're okay with manual gain riding, how do you feel about a box like the Audimax which basically tries to emulate the same process? In a typical classical chain, you'll have a limiter that kicks on every minute or so. Do you object to that? Very light limiting can buy you a lot, for very little sonic loss (and the BBC has been using it since the fifties). You can think of this as being safety limiting rather than processing if that makes you feel better. There is a huge range between no processing at all and the massively aggressive overprocessing that is the norm even in small markets here in the US. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
| DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
