Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: hoptoad!kumr!pozar@uunet.UU.NET (Tim Pozar)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Why they are killing the dynamic range?
Message-ID: <5870@uwm.edu>
Date: 23 Aug 90 13:22:02 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 55
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <5834@uwm.edu> bellutta@irst.it (Paolo Bellutta) writes:
>I've seen some messages from people working in recording studios and in
>TV/Radio stations.  This message is mainly for them.
>
>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?
    Actually, the FCC asks that all the programme material be within
a specified limit.  Not too low, nor too high. (Kinda silly about 
a low limit with all the talk about market-place regulation...)

    Some station programme directors (and sometimes engineers) feel
that the 'louder' the station, the better.  With 'loud' or dense 
audio the station 'jumps out' on the dial.  Also, by creative processing
the PD can colour the sound so as to provide some idenity to the 
station.  This is called 'positioning'.
    
    The argument to this is listener fatigue, and preservation of 
dynamic range.  Also, some stations use the lack of processing as 
a way to 'position' themselves.  The station I am the Chief Engineer
for (KKSF-FM / San Francisco), uses the lack of processing for exactly 
that.  I pride the station on being very audiophile. (My little plug.)

>Is that for the fact that different records have different recording 
>levels?
    No but records have different "loudness densities".  Compression 
and limiting for the stations that feel that they need it, is used
to homoginize the density as well as increase the loudness.  The latter
being the most important task for audio processing.

>All this may sound a bit rude but I think that what high-end people are
>really missing is the dynamic range of the original sound.  
    True, but you are a very small minority.  And that may sound a bit
rude too, but that is the way you are seen by most of the programme
directors out there.  If you are upset by this, pick your favorite 
over-processed radio station and address your letter to the 'Program
Director' and the 'Chief Engineer'.  You may get a letter back, but
it is unlikely you will change any minds.

>Since the people I'm asking this question *work* with audio I'd like to know
>what is the *real* reason.

    You got a very striped down version of what goes on behind the 
scenes in radio.  For further discussions, you can drop me a line or
give me a call.  Since you are in Italy, you may just want to drop me
a line :-).

                  Tim

-- 
Tim Pozar    Try also...
uunet!hoptoad!kumr!pozar      Fido: 1:125/555      PaBell: (415) 788-3904
      USNail:  KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108