In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:
.

Limiting is a form of compression since it removes excursions in excess
of
the level that would produce 100% modulation (or 100% negative peaks on
AM).

Not really. Limiting is a hard stop that is not ever passed. Compression
is an algorithm applied to the program material that attempts to prevent
reaching that max limit but it could go over limit in extreme
circumstances.

That's the definition that fit 30 years ago. Today, audio processers like
the Optimod and the Omnia employ delay to look ahead at the audio, then,
with advance knowledge, know when to reduce gain to prevent the need to peak
limit by hard clipping. So what we have is a merging of the concept of
compression and peak limiting. It's all achieved by looking ahead to know
how to process the audio that then heads to the transmitter.

I have a new moniker for you. Eduardo the 6 dB man, same BS story all
the time.

It's what works.

I don't think so. Maybe that's why I can't listen to most FM stations as
you helped pervert the sound.

There are about 30,000 stations in the Western Hemisphere. I can't see how
one person's adjustments can influence all of them.

The real truth is that stations have realized that a sound that is loud,
level and specttrally balanced wins if the programming is right.

Today's radio sounds infinitely better than it did 30 or 40 years ago.

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

What radio stations do today is wrong and the listenership is falling
off.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Tom wrote:

On Oct 19, 2:17 am, Telamon
wrote:
Look, I understand that there are limiter and processors but I just
can't believe most stations compress music into a 6 dB range. That's
just not right.


You're both right: FM system dynamic range may be on the order of 70
dB while the occupied dynamic range may be the top 6 dB for 95% of the
time on many stations. The dynamic range between a comfortable
loudness and ambient noise may be as much as 30-35 dB in the average
home or as little as 10-20 dB in an automobile. Stations that process
for the ideal home listening environment will have frustrated
listeners in the car if they carry wide dynamic range content such as
classical music and vice versa.

That's not what he meant Tom. Eduardo thinks that is the entire dynamic
range is 6 dB.

Tom is clairying that the dynamic range of the FM system vs. the dynamic
range of the program content broadcasters put into the system.

As Tom says, about 95% of the time the material on air is somewhere in the
vicinity of a 6 db dynamic range.

Good thing he clarified that for you. You were looking pretty stupid.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

Untrue. The "loudness" is done in mixdown and mastering. Most producers of
contemporary music look for a heavy, dense sound.

What radio stations do today is wrong and the listenership is falling
off.

I see. People are going to 128 kbs mp3's because radio sounds bad?

Again, the limited dynamic range is necessary to keep al program content
above the noise level of the listening environment. Radio is not the same as
listening to a CD.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

The MRC represents the interests of advertisers, who are beholden to
neither
the media nor the ratings companies. At most times, they are adversarial.

Yeah right. Keep on dreaming.

Obviously, you have never been in a radio station negotiation with an ad
agency. Or seen how an MRC decision caused Arbitron shares to lose 30% of
their value in 2007.

"Adversarial" may not have been a strong enough term... "gladiatorial" may
be a better fit.

How's it going 6dB man? Arbitron screwed themselves with your kind of
pointy haired thinking and the losses will keep on coming.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Tom is clairying that the dynamic range of the FM system vs. the dynamic
range of the program content broadcasters put into the system.

As Tom says, about 95% of the time the material on air is somewhere in
the
vicinity of a 6 db dynamic range.

Good thing he clarified that for you. You were looking pretty stupid.

No, he clarified for you that the system may be capable of much wider
dynamic range, but radio stations reduce the range of the content due to the
requirements of the market.

I had been saying all along that Brenda Ann's assesment of a dynamic range
of about 6 db is the norm for program content, not for the system.

A Porsche may be capable of 200 MPH, but the reality of the smoothness of
roads, other traffic and legal restrictions makes the average owner keep it
to 60 to 80 MPH at the top. FM is capable of a very wide dynamic range.
Reality forces stations to limit the range of content.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

Untrue. The "loudness" is done in mixdown and mastering. Most producers of
contemporary music look for a heavy, dense sound.

It is true. Take the cotton out of your ears. Of course it is done with
track mixing. You think the musicians are compressing their physical
instruments? Hilarious!

What radio stations do today is wrong and the listenership is falling
off.

I see. People are going to 128 kbs mp3's because radio sounds bad?

People resort to MP3 to save disk space not because it sounds good. MP3
is not all the same as you can determine the level of compression. And
before you get all crazy dynamic range compression is not the same thing
as data compression.

Again, the limited dynamic range is necessary to keep al program content
above the noise level of the listening environment. Radio is not the same as
listening to a CD.

The old record were capable of around 80 dB and CD's are around 90 dB. I
don't see why radio stations can't do 80 dB. The transmitters can handle
85% modulation.

And as for previous statements about table top radio with speakers only
a foot apart being worthless for stereo these can generate decent stereo
separation through electronic delay processing.

Hey, I just heard a spot for HD radio. I can answer it this way,
American's are smart enough to stay away from it. Ha, ha.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Tom is clairying that the dynamic range of the FM system vs. the dynamic
range of the program content broadcasters put into the system.

As Tom says, about 95% of the time the material on air is somewhere in
the
vicinity of a 6 db dynamic range.

Good thing he clarified that for you. You were looking pretty stupid.

No, he clarified for you that the system may be capable of much wider
dynamic range, but radio stations reduce the range of the content due to the
requirements of the market.

I had been saying all along that Brenda Ann's assesment of a dynamic range
of about 6 db is the norm for program content, not for the system.

A Porsche may be capable of 200 MPH, but the reality of the smoothness of
roads, other traffic and legal restrictions makes the average owner keep it
to 60 to 80 MPH at the top. FM is capable of a very wide dynamic range.
Reality forces stations to limit the range of content.

Hey there 6 dB man, he saved your lying butt.

You certainly are over the top.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

[snip]


No, most people don't realize there is no stereo separation because
the
lit
stereo light convinces them it is stereo when it is not.

[snip]

Let's not forget about modern FM car radios. My car's radio blends from
stereo to mono quite seamlessly as signals become less than ideal. If I
pay
attention, I'll notice that the reception is in weak stereo or full mono
much of the time. That's preferable because there's practially no
distorted
audio, abrupt switches from stereo to mono and picket fencing that come
with
full time stereo car radios. All the while, the stereo light never
blinks
off.

The stereo indicator only lights when a 19KHz pilot carrier is present.
The program material could be monophonic or stereo.


Yes, but the stereo demodulator blends to mono as the signal weakens. Mono
demodulation needs far less signal to get a good signal to noise radio. And
this isn't the stereo to mono auto switching the older demodulators used,
it's a gradual blend without an abrupt shift. The system works quite well
and I'm sure much of the time it's working as a mono demodulator on weak
signal stereo programming. There isn't even a stereo-mono switch on the
radio. It doesn't need one.

Frank Dresser

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

It's called a concept. I understand music bands have been engaged in
the
same process trying to sound louder than the other bands.

Untrue. The "loudness" is done in mixdown and mastering. Most producers
of
contemporary music look for a heavy, dense sound.

It is true. Take the cotton out of your ears. Of course it is done with
track mixing. You think the musicians are compressing their physical
instruments? Hilarious!

You said the bands were responsible. They are not. And mixdown is a lot more
than combining tracks at different levels... often individual instruments
are processed individually to bring out a particular "sound" the producer is
after. Again, it's not the band that makes thise decision in 99% of the
cases.

People resort to MP3 to save disk space not because it sounds good. MP3
is not all the same as you can determine the level of compression.

With terabyte HD's under $200 and 500 gig laptop drives at about $120 and
various memory plug ins at 8 gigs for around $20, there is no need for 128
kbs MP3s... it's simply the de facto standard for consumer audio.

MP3s are not overally intended always to save disk space. They are used at
the high end (256 kbs and 320 kbs) to be infinitely portable and
exchangable. A huge percentage of commercials come to stations now online
and in MP3 format, and most promotional music is in MP3 format... everyone
can play them, every system can use them.

And
before you get all crazy dynamic range compression is not the same thing
as data compression.

I realize this. Dynamic range compression is the restriction of the audio
content to a specific range. In this instance, I was discussing MP3's, not
the air chain of a radio station.

Again, the limited dynamic range is necessary to keep al program content
above the noise level of the listening environment. Radio is not the same
as
listening to a CD.

The old record were capable of around 80 dB and CD's are around 90 dB. I
don't see why radio stations can't do 80 dB. The transmitters can handle
85% modulation.

AM can handle 100% negative peaks, and most transmitters of the last few
decades can do maybe 140% on positive peaks.

FM transmitters can do way over 100% modulation, as the standard in the US
is simply +/- 75 kHz deviation for the arbitrary 100% modulation. In fact,
one can go to about 130% before receiver bandwidth shape factors make it
start sounding ugly.

Dynamic range is limited to make radio listenable in the typical
environments radio is heard in. The dominant factor is in-car, where if you
go beyond about 8 to 10 db noise masks some of the audio. So all other
environments where radio is used are subject to the limits of the worst one,
which is mostly in-car.

And as for previous statements about table top radio with speakers only
a foot apart being worthless for stereo these can generate decent stereo
separation through electronic delay processing.

I said no such thing, and you are lying. I said that many so-called stereo
clock radios have speakers that are 3" to 4" apart, and unless you put your
head within a few inches of the radio, the stereo effect is lost.

Hey, I just heard a spot for HD radio. I can answer it this way,
American's are smart enough to stay away from it. Ha, ha.

And you know so little about consumer behaviour that you should be written
up as a case study.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Tom is clairying that the dynamic range of the FM system vs. the
dynamic
range of the program content broadcasters put into the system.

As Tom says, about 95% of the time the material on air is somewhere in
the
vicinity of a 6 db dynamic range.

Good thing he clarified that for you. You were looking pretty stupid.

No, he clarified for you that the system may be capable of much wider
dynamic range, but radio stations reduce the range of the content due to
the
requirements of the market.

I had been saying all along that Brenda Ann's assesment of a dynamic
range
of about 6 db is the norm for program content, not for the system.

A Porsche may be capable of 200 MPH, but the reality of the smoothness of
roads, other traffic and legal restrictions makes the average owner keep
it
to 60 to 80 MPH at the top. FM is capable of a very wide dynamic range.
Reality forces stations to limit the range of content.

Hey there 6 dB man, he saved your lying butt.


He saved your misinterpretation of the facts.