RE: Audio Processing

["Peter Murray" <pete@partnercomm.com>]

Forgive my inexperience, but why waste 2/3 of your capacity just to offer a
diversity of processing levels? Why not just offer a flat feed, that can be
processed as the receiver (whether re-broadcaster or end-user) desires?

Am I missing something?

-Peter Murray (N3IXY)
Pittsburgh, PA

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
[mailto:owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org]On Behalf Of
Kaimbridge M. GoldChild
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 1:49 PM
To: B-R-I
Subject: Audio Processing (Was: WHCN)


Steve Ordinetz wrote,

> Howard Glazer wrote:

>> I do agree about the modulation, though. CC puts the same kind of
>> compression on country WWYZ. The difference is quite noticeable
>> when you switch from either CC signal to WDRC-FM, which is much
>> less punchy. I prefer DRC's cleaner sound, but I'm sure the CC
>> folks have research numbers to back up their approach.
>
>
> I wonder if XM (haven't heard Sirius yet) will change attitudes
> toward compression.  While I think XM sounds a little flat &
> lifeless, especially in a car--isteners may come to associate this
> with "better fidelity".  Processing is more art than science, and
> perception is everything.

And--ahem--some think "the more the merrier" in terms of processing.
Locally, the station with the best processing (and being wasted on, I
might add, since it mostly only shows through on the oldies as the
current studio crap lacks any atmospheric depth, whatsoever) is
Star-93.7, with WUMB-91.9 runner-up and Oldies-103.3 coming in third
(the NH SeaCoast's 97.5, 100.3 and 101.1 are notably better than
average, too).
Ideally, with multiple channels available, the satcasters (and
terrestrials, once--if?--IBOC takes hold) will offer different feeds of
the same program, with minimal, "average" and heavy processing.

     ~Kaimbridge~

--
Note:  E-Mail address has changed to kaimbridge@programmer.net,
as Google's @my-deja.com service was terminated on 2001-DEC-12.