USA radio stations sound low-fi

[C.Lambrechts]

I wonder why I never really noticed this on any of my visits to the US, oh well ... must have had my mind set on other things .... anyhow :

US radio stations ... on the FM band even, ALL sound as if they have a low pass filter on the signal that goes on air. Maybe calling it Low-Fi is exaggerating but it definately isn't Hi-Fi either. At least it is far less hi-fi then the radio signal we get over in Europe. I also suspect you boost the bass a little but I'll leave that in the middle.

My point is it got me thinking 'bout something. Except for the volume wars,there's also something as the sprankling highs war. You know what I mean ... the 'how far can I boost the trebble up before it realy gets ear bleeding. I wonder if the mixers over here, intended or unconsciously compensate in the way they mix for that ... trying to make up as much as possible for that low pass filter thingy.



Opinions ?

[Wayne]

Originally posted by C.Lambrechts
Opninions ?

Sure here's one. Here I am a music/recording enthusiast barely able to stomach (US) radio. Let's see, the reasons I'd want to listen in the first place; enjoyment? Very little. Study up on mix and tonal balances? No. There is little left of either due to the absurd amounts of compression and tone shaping going on, front-to-back volumes turned upside down, the jacked up 'fizz' that passes for high end.
On the other hand I figure I'm a poor example (maybe completely atypical?). My radio's treble is on -10; lot's of people have them at +10.

Wayne

[Jim Williams]

Most U.S. FM stations are using Bob Orban's Optimod processor. It's got the usual aural excretment function in there. I've seen a couple other "pre-transmitter" processors and what they do to the high end is criminal.

Most have adjustments so much of the blaim goes to the stations program director or engineer for over abuse. I didn't hear much of a difference in top end zip from LA stations to Athens or Istanbul, but having a treble cut is essential anywhere.

Just remember if you bring your FM tuner to Europe that you don't use a digital tuner. U.S. FM frequencies are set to odd increments, 101.5 for example. European tranmitter frequencies are set to even increments, 101.4 for example. With a U.S. digital tuner in Europe all you will pick up is the noise between stations!
Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[bigbaby987]

first off as being someone who has been in "US radio business" for close to 15 years. i think i'll know what i'm about to say.

first i think you have to understand the radio mentality. first, if it's clean, it's cool.

secondl, everyone doesn not use an optimod. mostly medium to small markets as far as i know.

third, who cares about the hi-fi and lo-fi of it all. i hate to say that lambert you have the most subjective and opinionated ears on this site, no offense. you are a purists to a great degree. i respect that but i also feel that it can be a hinderance.

think about it this way: (i work at the third largest radio station in new york city: just need you to understand where i'm coming from-that's all-not tooting the horn) as the production manager for my station...i think about real everyday life...not engineers like yourself. i concern myself with the taxi driver who has the station all day in his lo-fi cab. i care about the secretary singing her cares away on her little transister radio at her desk. i care about the department store that's gonna play my station over anyone elses on their $30 ceiling mounted speakers...because they like the music and the message. hey you can talk about "this-fi and that-fi all day" but if it sounds good, then run with it....atleat 1.2 million people at any given time agree with me.

[biggator6]

aren't most of the major (clear channel, etc) stations all converted over to digital now? using some type of compressed file format (Mp3? Wma?) ?

of course that doesn't take into consideration that most major label stuff is just crushed - then likely recompressed at the radio station on the way out.

I'm not in the radio biz, but a friend who works for Universal music was talking about it the other day.

If you want to hear the difference, listen to XM or Sirius - neither are perfect, but they're more like what FM used to sound like.
"-)

[bigbaby987]

Originally posted by biggator6
If you want to hear the difference, listen to XM or Sirius - neither are perfect, but they're more like what FM used to sound like.
"-)

i do feel like satellite radio sounds better than fm stations do and so do many other radio cats.

[ToddP]

Radio has loudness wars of its own. Station managers don't want to hear the next station on the dial sounding "louder." It is the same problem as the loudness wars in mastering. The stations are compressing the s*** out of the signal at the transmission level to fill every bit of bandwidth. It's all about ad sales and nothing about music. Same old story.

[SaxonSound]

Originally posted by C.Lambrechts
[B
Opinions ? [/B]

The FM band itself is a low-pass filter at 15khz.

The Orban Optimod boxes process at a sampling rate of 32khz, so they too have a low pass filter, although it doesn't matter since it is higher than FM can pass anyway. The Optimod boxes are not ubiquitous though. Their major competitor is Omnia, whose boxes sample at 48k or 96k depending on the model.

The increased highs and lows you noticed are very real. That is the radio station taking advantage of the fletcher-munson curve to make their station seem louder. Same deal with the hyper-compression.

[flexoffset]

Ok, this is probably a stupid question, but how does winning a radio-loudness war translate into more advertising dollars?

How does a louder radio station attract more listeners?

Why does it matter if one station is louder than the other since you can't have both tuned in your car at the same time anyway?

Isn't there still a volume knob on radios?

Don't some radios have a limiter 'feature' called 'auto-volume' so differences in the loudness of program content stays at the same level no matter what the original levels were?
My Sony TV has this feature. I'm pretty sure radios do, too.

Have any stations tried bucking this trend in favor of more 'dynamic' signals? If so, have they met their doom by doing this?

These aren't rhetorical questions.
I'd actually like someone to clear this up for me.

[Scinx]

Originally posted by flexoffset
Ok, this is probably a stupid question, but how does winning a radio-loudness war translate into more advertising dollars?

Because it is assumed that when scanning from one station to the next, a person's attention will be caught easier if the music is louder and they will stop to listen. In other words - the station will stand out from the others.

How does a louder radio station attract more listeners?

More listeners becomes more advertising dollars.

Why does it matter if one station is louder than the other since you can't have both tuned in your car at the same time anyway?

See answer above

Isn't there still a volume knob on radios?

Yes - but it doesnt adjust automatically and when driving through heavy traffic - one might not be compelled to change it.

Have any stations tried bucking this trend in favor of more 'dynamic' signals? If so, have they met their doom by doing this?

A lot of college stations have bucked this trend just because they dont have resources, etc. and because some are run by purists. Conversely, the larger commercial stations still believe louder is better and they believe (correctly) that the majority of most people wont know the difference between over compressed sludge and open, airy dynamic music. As such, they have no reason to change to natural sounding music and every reason to keep feeding the masses noise.

These aren't rhetorical questions.
I'd actually like someone to clear this up for me.

That would be my two cents of the matter. I listen to college radio almost exclusively because they play better music and are more personal. They also dont tend to play the same 5 songs in a circle all month long.

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by bigbaby987
third, who cares about the hi-fi and lo-fi of it all. i hate to say that lambert you have the most subjective and opinionated ears on this site, no offense. you are a purists to a great degree. i respect that but i also feel that it can be a hinderance.

hmmmm ..... too bad .... I blame that kinda mentality to be one of the reasons why people do not apreciate high quality production work, especially coming from the people who make radio and thus carry a huge responsability to some extend to the twists and turns in the music bizz. I mean ... it suddenly makes a lot more sence and I'm not kidding here. the quality you guys put out in the air SHOULD matter. No wonder people think mp3's made at 64kbits streams sound good .... hell compared to the radio signal over here they do.

Originally posted by bigbaby987

think about it this way: (i work at the third largest radio station in new york city: just need you to understand where i'm coming from-that's all-not tooting the horn) as the production manager for my station...i think about real everyday life...not engineers like yourself. i concern myself with the taxi driver who has the station all day in his lo-fi cab. i care about the secretary singing her cares away on her little transister radio at her desk. i care about the department store that's gonna play my station over anyone elses on their $30 ceiling mounted speakers...because they like the music and the message. hey you can talk about "this-fi and that-fi all day" but if it sounds good, then run with it....atleat 1.2 million people at any given time agree with me.

so the lofi cab and the little transistors out there ... even if they are considerable in numbers .... justify the screw up ?????

I think I can speak in name of the united association of engineers / mixers / producers / musicians and anyone else involved in creating a musical product around the universe when I say this : Thank you for apreciating what we try so hard at to do the best we can. Thank you for screwing that up and thank you for realising your part of the responsability in making people out there ignorant of a high quality sound.

btw ... in case someone would wonder ... I'm not even kidding.... I'm dead serious .... scarry huh.

[bigbaby987]

radio was never.....ever....ever...meant to be some purist medium of pristine audio...it's about money and always been...or i'm sure you always knew that since you act like you know what marconi was aiming after back in the 1920's. if you really want to get sickening about it then forget cd's...i mean technically the are only 44.1/"16" how dare we 'bit'.......you are entitled to your opinion, but don't discredit what me or any of my co workers do. furthermore...WE producers-yes i have produced commercial releases..some soley for the european market, engineers, artists and more do this for the money--BOTTOM LINE!!! all of this purist's mentality is the fringe benefit to the WORK we do. don't unload your high and mighty speech to me. radio is a medium to entertain the listener. how many average people care what gear you actually used to produce or engineer anything...that goes for people in the clubs, at work, in the CAB, at the airport, or anywhere else. ***wait i see it now...(picture it)two guys sitting at the bar: "hey jay is that an la-2a on the drums...."nah man sounds like a c2 compressor pumping baby...i gotta get to the dance floor-THAT'S ME COMPRESSOR BABY!!" you will never hear 2 ordinary people say that....nor will you sit in a cab and the patrons say" you know there's like a hi frequency band pass that make the station sound so LO-FI" *** not 2 run of the mill average everyday people. you don't hear people standing in line at the supermarket talking about loudness wars. it doesn't happen and frankly they don't care. what they do care about is hearing the music that makes them happy. the only people that do what we do care about the sheer aesthetics that go into this and frankly i could care less what you or any discerning ear like you thinks as long as the listener gets the message and can ENJOY what they HEAR. go listen to you $10,000 record player through your $5000 amp pumping some unadulterated audio into your $20,000 speakers at home and shut up about radio.....and by the way......you're welcome!!!!!!

pardon my spelling only doing it with one hand

[heinz]

Well, there ya have it. Radio is a business. Holy crap this changes everything.

So we have music that is

- compressed during tracking
- smashed during mastering
- obliterated during FM broadcast

Who wins?

The guys selling the compressors ! ! !

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by bigbaby987
you know what? you sound like an idiot!!!!

tutt tutt tutt

[bigbaby987]

Originally posted by C.Lambrechts
lol ..... thank god it sounds better where I live then .............

amen! and that's "God"

heinz: lol....i think we take this way to far sometimes...look at what great recordings were made before DAW's and the like. if that's the case people wouldn't like jimi, the beatles, parliament, and so on.....hey it's just some old technology with reels and stuff right? no, it's great music with great performances.

don't get me wrong. things should sound good. but don't let this stuff cloud your mind on what people really want. is it the new apogee converters or music they love recorded well, maybe not even great.

[C.Lambrechts]

ok, back to my original point .... why do US radio stations sound more lofi then european stations ?

someone pointed out that over here stations will send out on say 96.1 where in europe that would be 96.2 ... dunno if that has something to do zith it but that aside, what reason could one have not to send out the best possible, read hifi, signal possible ?

That's what I do not understand. so what if 99/100 listeners are not able to tell the difference due to either the gear they listen on ?

I understand the money concept behind it all, the commercial 'value' of it all ... hell that can even be looked at as a good thing to some extend. But why compromise on the audio quality side of things ?

[Bob Olhsson]

The magic word in radio is COVERAGE. Compression makes commercials intelligible at greater distances from the transmitter. Coverage along with ratings determines a station's rates.

[soapbox]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
The magic word in radio is COVERAGE. Compression makes commercials intelligible at greater distances from the transmitter. Coverage along with ratings determines a station's rates.

Bob, that makes perfect sense.

To apply this answer to Chris' question, I wouldn't be surprised at all if US radio stations generally had a wider area to cover than those in Europe. Cities tend to sprawl here, and there's still lots of wide open space...

Best,

Geoff

----
Yes, I'm the same guy who used to be soapbox in the Music Player forums.

[David Herbert]

BigBaby,
I don't think all radio is necessarily commercial: NPR, Pacifica, CBC, BBC, college radio, KEXP, WFMU...

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by bigbaby987
you don't hear people standing in line at the supermarket talking about loudness wars. it doesn't happen and frankly they don't care. what they do care about is hearing the music that makes them happy. the only people that do what we do care about the sheer aesthetics that go into this and frankly i could care less what you or any discerning ear like you thinks as long as the listener gets the message and can ENJOY what they HEAR.

Ehhhh...I can't agree with all of this.

While average people might not be able to talk about loudness wars a fair amount of average people are fairly aware of how bad records and radio sound these days. Frankly, there's no real reason IMHO for a radio signal to be smashed to within an inch of it's life and be flatter then Kansas...to tbe point where the dynamics are inversed. Why? So I can hear the song when I'm doing 75 down a highway with the windows open? Sorry, but I can hear WBGO & WDHA just as well as K Rock and neither of those have as much processing as the latter. Sure they can get the message but the quality and being able to enjoy it? How can anyone enjoy a signal that sounds like static?

For me it's a not much of an issue. I put Sirius in my car at the end of April and I've been loving life. No dropouts, no overprocessing, no going into mono or semi-stereo to stereo and back in about 8.6 seconds. No commercials, over 140 stations of things to listen to and all for about $200 of equipment and $10 a month.

[BrianT]

Why does radio here sound worse?

Hmmm, well, does it? Really? Or does it just sound different? What are you listening to US radio on, and how does that factor into your normal Euro-radio listening environment?

But I digress. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that radio sounds worse in the U.S.

I don't think you/we can accept the real answer. It's beyond our comprehension. Nevertheless, it's unavoidable when you use pure, detached logic.

It sounds "worse" because what you are calling fidelity doesn't matter to the average listener. At all.

If it did, radio would sound "better". Because radio is all about the Benjamins, and if sounding what you call "better" made a difference to the listener, the radio stations would be all over it. Like it or not, the radio stations are far, far more in touch with the likes and dislikes of people who listen to radio than you/we are with the people who buy CDs. If it mattered, they would care.

To be honest, we aren't making records for other people. We make them for ourselves, and hope it all works out. Radio programmers have no such mindset. And the relatively "non-issue" status of sound quality in the results of their listener feedback seem incomprehensible to us. Because we choose to live in the fantasy that other people care about what we care about........sonic goodness. But mostly, they don't. They just dig J-Lo's big booty, or whatever.

[bigbaby987]

this is my last post on this subject.... radio was never meant for the discerning ear... if you want to hear everything the way you really want, then buy cd's.

jay. no, people have absolutely no concern with loudness wars or the condition of a the music. i mean, i live in the real world here. (don't get me wrong, being a gearslut is cool too) but, the only people that concern themselves are people like us. in fact jay you said it best...if you want better pay for it...radio is free.

brian t. "Because radio is all about the Benjamins, and if sounding what you call "better" made a difference to the listener, the radio stations would be all over it. Like it or not, the radio stations are far, far more in touch with the likes and dislikes of people who listen to radio than you/we are with the people who buy CDs. If it mattered, they would care. To be honest, we aren't making records for other people. We make them for ourselves, and hope it all works out. Radio programmers have no such mindset. And the relatively "non-issue" status of sound quality in the results of their listener feedback seem incomprehensible to us. Because we choose to live in the fantasy that other people care about what we care about........sonic goodness. But mostly, they don't. They just dig J-Lo's big booty, or whatever." you hit the nail on the head!!! i love you man!!

david. come on man. it's non profit free radio that plays mostly very non commercial music.

bob. (i got mad respect for ya dude!) but i think you're half right... i just don't know about the compression thing. one thing that it does seem to do (and maybe this is what you are saying) is even everything out. nothing really sounds like it's out of place. think about how many records are mastered differently and commercials that aren't professionally mastered at all. maybe that's part of it. maybe..

i must admit gang i took it personal in the beginning here, but i respect your opinions here. i may think you're all wrong and crazy even(ok, that's purely a joke. purely) but we all have our own opinions.

peace baby!

[soapbox]

So what's next? Sony Oxford Inflator?

Best,

Geoff

[Teacher]

radio sucks! ESPECIALLY 98.7 kiss in NY

[bigbaby987]

teach you're alright with me...LOLOLOLOL!!!

[David Herbert]

BigBaby,
I know those are all non-profit radio stations/networks.
I listed them in response to your assertion that "radio was never.....ever....ever...meant to be some purist medium of pristine audio...it's about money and always been...".
My point is that radio does not necessarily need to be all about the money.
Good points on both sides.
If anyone is curious, yes I have pledged money to non-commercial radio: KEXP before Paul Allen started funding it.
David

[jajjguy]

Of course commercial radio is commercial. And it's also true that most listeners (and most listening situations) can't tell the difference between loud sound/good reception and anything better.

Where the industry goes from there depends on its business philosophy. Sometimes it can make good business sense to try to do more than just make the biggest grab for an existing market. Sometimes it makes (business) sense to try to educate the marketplace a bit by offering a better product, even if your listeners don't immediately know it's better. This is a more sustainable way to do business, because it keeps your audience interested and ready for new things.

Recently, cable TV (especially HBO) has shown that ordinary consumers can be educated to value quality, but it has to be done over time. Could this be done with music somehow, with or without radio?

[LTA]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
The magic word in radio is COVERAGE. Compression makes commercials intelligible at greater distances from the transmitter. Coverage along with ratings determines a station's rates.

More specifically, how many listeners listening is the bottom line concerning how much a media outlet can charge for advertising.

Now, i'd like to disagree (in a specific case) to your middle sentence. Compression does keep content on the AM band above the radio noise floor longer. If you hop in your car and drive for many hours, you can hear the signal get quieter and quieter, while the noise is getting louder. As you said.

But, FM doesn't behave this way. You are either getting it, or not. In your car, there is probably a 15 minute drive from a station coming in clear to not coming in at all, if you are near the edge. FM will flicker between clear music and static (or the next station on their frequency). I'd like to say the carrier and subcarrier are allready at full modulation in FM, regardless of the program level.

And then on to the 20kHz broadcast guy: FM bandwidth is fixed. The higher the frequency of your modulation source, the more bandwidth you need. And given sidebands, going from 16kHz to 20kHz would take more than an addition 4kHz of bandwidth. Just given how everything has been layed out by law, FM can't broadcast past 15 or 16kHz.

While i feel sources should be at higher bit depths (and maybe even sample rates), once the work reaches the production environment it should be hacked up to fit the medium. Since a radiocaster doesn't broadcast above 16kHz, they don't need to hear it to make a decision concerning playlists and timing. Bite-sized sound nuggets breaded and dropped straight into a 50,000 watt fryer for immediate enjoyment. Cart plastic doesn't taste very good when it is overcooked, so be careful.

[biggator6]

I often get comments from people who know that I know a bit about recording - asking me why listening to the radio now seems to be 'tiring'.. they say they just can't listen to an hour or two of radio anymore without feeling beat up.

Thats exactly the example of people who don't KNOW what the problem is - but they know theres a problem
"-)

[bigbaby987]

jaj...hbo is using technical advancements as a marketing ploy. i've worked at station that once they received their digital transmitter the first thing they said was how much better their signal was. promos and all. so that's that.

lta...you're on it baby.

biggs: the facts show that people listen to my station and my sister station (HOT 97) listen for atleast an hour or so. how often do people in general listen to the radio more than that anyways? once tv came into the picture and now computers. radio has taken a serious back seat and families don't crowd around the radio at night anymore.....and i'm sure it's not because they get this feeling of sudden exhaustion. no cabs running off the side of the street or anything crazy like that.


ok, i said i wasn't going to post anymore. but please understand this. programmers listen to the songs...they see if they like it. they put it on. if it sounds fine from there it's all good. programmers don't sit around talking about the latest mastering methods and how outrageous they have become. they want music people want to hear and they want it on the air as long as it doesn't sound like it came out of your basement. do you know how many songs made on probably a digi 001 or 002 for mixtapes hit the air and are huge records in new york alone. come on. you do this meticulous stuff for yourselves and not the general public.