Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: eecae!urban@harvard.harvard.edu (Mark Urban-Lurain)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Why they are killing the dynamic range?
Message-ID: <5868@uwm.edu>
Date: 23 Aug 90 13:13:00 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 49
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <5834@uwm.edu> bellutta@irst.it (Paolo Bellutta) writes:
>
>Recording Studios:
>  I can understand that voice for example sounds better when a
>limiter is used, but why *everything* must be limited and/or compressed?

As a former audio engineer in various public radio and TV stations,
here's my perspective.  Use of compression is a production decision in
the recording studio.  It is just one more tool (like EQ) available to
the producer.  Unfortunately, many (rock) artists and producers like
the compressed sound, it seems "louder" and "denser".  In addition,
although CD's have wide dynamic range, cassette is still the dominant
medium for popular music (played on mid-fi equipment in most cases) so
many producers feel that they must target this audience.  

>TV/Radio Stations: 
>When a record is transmitted I can understand that the microphone *must* be
>compressed *and* limited so that the transmitted signal fits the FCC
>specifications, but why compress and limit the music also?  Is that for the
>fact that different records have different recording levels?  

Nope, it is because maximum modulation is 100%.  Now, it makes no
difference to the FCC what the average modulation level is, so to sound
"louder" than the competition, stations compress / limit (they are two
different processes) so that their average level is as high as possible
without being over 100%.  There are a number of companies who do nothing
but make "signal processing" equipment for broadcast use that does just
this.  Many of them compress different frequency bands individually
(like a limiter on each equalizer control) to allow "shaping" of the
final sound.  It's all fairly gross, but management usually pressures
engineering to "make it louder" after the program director scans all the
stations on his car radio and finds one louder than his.  

One reason I prefered working as an engineer in public broadcasting was
that they were more concerned with quality than quantity. However, in
recent years, with fund raising being a big part of public broadcasting,
management was adopting similar attitudes there.  

You CAN write a letter to the stations, telling them that you think
their sound is lousy.  Best to point out the best sounding station in
the market (they'll know it too, but don't think the audience can tell).
It won't do much good, but it may help the engineers resist moron
program directors.

--
Mark Urban-Lurain                        urban@cpswh.cps.msu.edu
Computer Science Dept.                   urbanluraimg@clvax1.cl.msu.edu
Michigan State University                (517) 353-0682   
A-714 Wells Hall, East Lansing, MI  48824