In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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


I doubt it. Other than the cubical radio all my listening has
been and is stereo.

The radio is a perfect square? Or you have it in your cubicle?

Actually rectangular. There is a Tivoli One in my work cubical. Try
and get your reading comprehension up to speed.

I understand quite well. "Cubical" is "cube shaped" while "cubicle"
is a partially separated work area.

My mistake. Sorry about that but you knew what I meant.

Many research companies have done over the last few decades
studies on what kind of radio people use most of the time. It's
the kitchen radio from Bed, Bath and Beyond or WalMart or Target,
picked often more to match the color of the countertops than for
any audio quality concerns. And it's mono. It's the clock radio...
similarly mono, or with two speakers 3 inches apart, which is
still mono. It's the radio in the payment booth at the car park,
or the one in the office or the AC station on the overhead
speakers in the insurance office. It's mostly mono.

The FM radios I use "most of the time" are the car or home receiver
with speaker far enough apart for good stereo. You sure use whacked
surveys to shape your views or maybe you just misconstrue them.

The fact is that most people do not listen on receivers with separate
speakers, and most lower end cars have too much mechanical and road
noise for good stereo... that is why stations process everything, not
just the music.

Baloney. I've rented cheap cars that have low end radios in them and
they are all stereo.

Various studies have shown that around 60% of the average quarter
hour listening is pure mono, meaning almost all in home and at work
listening. In fact, quite a few stations have done the "mono with the
stereo light lit" thing as mono fares better in areas of high
multipath or for class A stations trying to compete with B's or C's.

You are the one with the wax plugged ears. I can tell when the
programming is stereo without looking at the stereo indicator and yes
part of the programming is not stereo even though the indicator
continues to detect the pilot signal. I don't believe the 60% mono
figure. You are not making any sense at all today.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

OK, I'll give this a shot. You substitute marketing statical bull-crap
for reality. That's where you go wrong.


If that is the case, then an entire industry with over 100,000 employees is
mistaken.

The research tools used by broadcasters are no more "bull crap" than a study
about yields as related to silicon purity in chip fabs.

Obviously, anything you don't agree with is wrong.

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

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


When you look at ANY station's modulation monitor, the excursion range
seldom goes below 80% to 85% and is clipped hard at 100%.

Talk radio does not need a large dynamic range but 6 dB seems to small.
It seems to me that the sound levels vary more than 4 X.


"It seems to you." That must be the IEEE "ISTY" standard for modulation
density, right?

6 db is not much. Good audio is more like 80 to 100 dB.

Not on the radio, where the ambient noise in most listening locations does
not permit that degree of dynamic range.

And you criticize me for using widely accepted and broadly syndicated
Arbitron data used by all significant top 300 market stations in the US,
but
you have taken on the job of being the standard for modulation all by
your
lonesome.

You are nuts.

As I said, if I am all you accuse me of, then everyone in the radio industry
and even its suppliers is also nuts. I tend to think that you, the lone
doubter, are the one in need of attention.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


Most people don't even notice it, such is the way of today's music (most
any format). It's all part of the 'volume wars'. Stations clamoring to
get noticed in a sea of other stations, so they want their signal to be as
loud as possible.

If anything, processing is less on the average than it was in the 70's and
80's on FM, or the way it was in the 60's on AM.


Eduardo talks about how stations have been using compression for many
decades. This may well be true, but not the vast majority of them.

I don't recall ever seeing a US station without at least a peak limiter
going back to the late 50's. And everywhere I went, I visited stations...
ranging from places like Ludington, MI, to San Francisco.

Small market stations were using no compression at all well into the 80's.
One public station I worked at never had it until their newest studios
were built in the early 90's. Until the late 80's, we didn't even have
stereo (management didn't want to cut our usable range, as we were only
running about 1.8 KW), and until the mid '80's, we were still using Korean
war surplus mixers and 50's era monaural professional recording equipment.


That may be true for a few public stations, but commercial stations knew two
things: if the listeners can't hear you, they won't listen... and the FCC
was genuinely intolerant of stations that did not have electronic control of
peak limiting.

The Levil Devils and such were the rule in the late 50's, and even major
market stations (you can hear them on airchecks) had what by today's
standards is horrible pumping and clipping from those early devices.

Then the Audimax and Volumax came out in the early 60's and we all went
crazy changing the components to get more clipping and greater and faster
AGC. The 80's brought multiband processors from Durrough and Gregg Labs and
such, and culminated with the Optimod.

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

The fact is that most people do not listen on receivers with separate
speakers, and most lower end cars have too much mechanical and road
noise for good stereo... that is why stations process everything, not
just the music.

Baloney. I've rented cheap cars that have low end radios in them and
they are all stereo.

You are so linear and literal I'll bet you have never laughed at a pun or a
joke.

I said that the ambient noise from the car itself as well as road noise are
such that most stereo information is lost or imperceptible in vehicles and,
thus, not appreciated. In addition, the processing on nearly all stations
reduces the dynamic range, so the stereo effect of different levels from
left and right is eliminated... and that applies to any listening location.

Various studies have shown that around 60% of the average quarter
hour listening is pure mono, meaning almost all in home and at work
listening. In fact, quite a few stations have done the "mono with the
stereo light lit" thing as mono fares better in areas of high
multipath or for class A stations trying to compete with B's or C's.

You are the one with the wax plugged ears. I can tell when the
programming is stereo without looking at the stereo indicator and yes
part of the programming is not stereo even though the indicator
continues to detect the pilot signal.

I said that there were stations that got the stereo light to shine without
actually being in stereo. The objective was deceiptful, as what they wanted
was to make people think that the station was stereo when it wasn't. Most
people never figured that out as they couldn't tell the difference.

I don't believe the 60% mono
figure. You are not making any sense at all today.

I really don't care what you believe as you have no data to the contrary
while the radio industry has countless valid surveys.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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

OK, I'll give this a shot. You substitute marketing statical bull-crap
for reality. That's where you go wrong.


If that is the case, then an entire industry with over 100,000 employees is
mistaken.

And you think that is not possible? Look at what just happened in the RE
loan industry. Those people believed and now they are screwed.

The research tools used by broadcasters are no more "bull crap" than a study
about yields as related to silicon purity in chip fabs.

Obviously, anything you don't agree with is wrong.

Apples and oranges. Studying semiconductor parametrics to determine
yields are a far cry to how from what Arbitron does. You can makeup
anything mixing people and statistics.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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

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


When you look at ANY station's modulation monitor, the excursion range
seldom goes below 80% to 85% and is clipped hard at 100%.

Talk radio does not need a large dynamic range but 6 dB seems to small.
It seems to me that the sound levels vary more than 4 X.


"It seems to you." That must be the IEEE "ISTY" standard for modulation
density, right?

6 db is not much. Good audio is more like 80 to 100 dB.

Not on the radio, where the ambient noise in most listening locations does
not permit that degree of dynamic range.

Really? what is permissible then?

And you criticize me for using widely accepted and broadly syndicated
Arbitron data used by all significant top 300 market stations in the US,
but
you have taken on the job of being the standard for modulation all by
your
lonesome.

You are nuts.

As I said, if I am all you accuse me of, then everyone in the radio industry
and even its suppliers is also nuts. I tend to think that you, the lone
doubter, are the one in need of attention.

Nope, just you. I don't think the industry stands behind you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


Most people don't even notice it, such is the way of today's music (most
any format). It's all part of the 'volume wars'. Stations clamoring to
get noticed in a sea of other stations, so they want their signal to be as
loud as possible.

If anything, processing is less on the average than it was in the 70's and
80's on FM, or the way it was in the 60's on AM.

The argument is dynamic range and I find your 6 dB figure unbelievable.

Eduardo talks about how stations have been using compression for many
decades. This may well be true, but not the vast majority of them.

I don't recall ever seeing a US station without at least a peak limiter
going back to the late 50's. And everywhere I went, I visited stations...
ranging from places like Ludington, MI, to San Francisco.

Fine. I understand the need for limiting. So what.

Small market stations were using no compression at all well into the 80's.
One public station I worked at never had it until their newest studios
were built in the early 90's. Until the late 80's, we didn't even have
stereo (management didn't want to cut our usable range, as we were only
running about 1.8 KW), and until the mid '80's, we were still using Korean
war surplus mixers and 50's era monaural professional recording equipment.


That may be true for a few public stations, but commercial stations knew two
things: if the listeners can't hear you, they won't listen... and the FCC
was genuinely intolerant of stations that did not have electronic control of
peak limiting.

The Levil Devils and such were the rule in the late 50's, and even major
market stations (you can hear them on airchecks) had what by today's
standards is horrible pumping and clipping from those early devices.

Then the Audimax and Volumax came out in the early 60's and we all went
crazy changing the components to get more clipping and greater and faster
AGC. The 80's brought multiband processors from Durrough and Gregg Labs and
such, and culminated with the Optimod.

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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

The fact is that most people do not listen on receivers with separate
speakers, and most lower end cars have too much mechanical and road
noise for good stereo... that is why stations process everything, not
just the music.

Baloney. I've rented cheap cars that have low end radios in them and
they are all stereo.

You are so linear and literal I'll bet you have never laughed at a pun or a
joke.

I said that the ambient noise from the car itself as well as road noise are
such that most stereo information is lost or imperceptible in vehicles and,
thus, not appreciated. In addition, the processing on nearly all stations
reduces the dynamic range, so the stereo effect of different levels from
left and right is eliminated... and that applies to any listening location.

It's easy to perceive depending on the material. Say a different
instrument comes from left and right at the same volume. Easy to tell
even with road noise.

Various studies have shown that around 60% of the average quarter
hour listening is pure mono, meaning almost all in home and at work
listening. In fact, quite a few stations have done the "mono with the
stereo light lit" thing as mono fares better in areas of high
multipath or for class A stations trying to compete with B's or C's.

You are the one with the wax plugged ears. I can tell when the
programming is stereo without looking at the stereo indicator and yes
part of the programming is not stereo even though the indicator
continues to detect the pilot signal.

I said that there were stations that got the stereo light to shine without
actually being in stereo. The objective was deceiptful, as what they wanted
was to make people think that the station was stereo when it wasn't. Most
people never figured that out as they couldn't tell the difference.

How am I supposed to know about most people. You saying most people are
stupid then?

I don't believe the 60% mono figure. You are not making any sense
at all today.

I really don't care what you believe as you have no data to the
contrary while the radio industry has countless valid surveys.

People don't lie in the surveys? Mistakes are not made? Silly people
like you are not around to misinterpret the data?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

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

OK, I'll give this a shot. You substitute marketing statical bull-crap
for reality. That's where you go wrong.


If that is the case, then an entire industry with over 100,000 employees
is
mistaken.

And you think that is not possible? Look at what just happened in the RE
loan industry. Those people believed and now they are screwed.

Most of that invold the very few people who set policy.

The research tools used by broadcasters are no more "bull crap" than a
study
about yields as related to silicon purity in chip fabs.

Obviously, anything you don't agree with is wrong.

Apples and oranges. Studying semiconductor parametrics to determine
yields are a far cry to how from what Arbitron does. You can makeup
anything mixing people and statistics.


The fact is that the Arbitron diary methodology and implementation are
accredited by the Media Research Council, made up mostly of some of the best
statisticians and surveying technologists in the country who work at the
behest of the advertising and agency communities. The purpose is to
guarantee that proper techniques and procedures are used so that the data is
reliable within the ocnstraints of the limits of polling.