[BC] Digital Intgerference (was AM Interference)

[Steve]

You think Phil Spector had a wall of sound (now a wall of jail) but if you
didn't see the processing wall at KFRC in San Francisco then I would have to
say that the left coast knows about loudness as much as does the right. When
I was at CBS in San Francisco the sales guy from HP came by with his newest
gadget (in the 70's it was new) a scope with a camera that you could swing
into place and take a picture of the modulation of the station of your
choice. We froze James Gabbert's KIOI at 175%!! Yes, we had our good share
of audiophiles but we had those who needed to be loud as well. And, your
points are well taken about the East Coast as well.

Steve
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rich Wood" <richwood at pobox.com>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [BC] Digital Intgerference (was AM Interference)


> ------ At 09:53 PM 12/17/2005, Robert Orban wrote: -------
>
> >This result was no surprise to me, because I have been comparing the
> >HD and analog FM processed outputs of our processors for over three
> >years in the lab. What is still a mystery is why Rich Wood heard
> >none of this on any station he auditioned.
>
> Actually, I found it on only one of all the stations I heard. WBOS,
> Boston, was the only station that was clearly properly processing
> separately. WSRS, Worcester, MA, between Boston and Springfield, was
> separate but the digital had such an artificial high end that no
> glass was safe. I can only think it was adjusted using the GM's muddy
> car radio to make it sound good on that receiver. Add all female
> jingles and it was sheer masochism to hear. I think WBOS would fit
> your requirements for punch and the stuff in the mixes that gets lost
> in analog processing. It wasn't CD quality but there was a definite
> difference. Artifacts would be the only thing that would bother me in
> listening to the station. There was no secondary on WBOS, so I assume
> it was 96Kbps.
>
> Having lived for many years in the Southwest (sorry "The Great
> Southwest" Dallas) and California I can tell you there's a dramatic
> philosophical difference between coasts. Maybe it's because New
> Yorkers are so used to constant high ambient noise that everything
> must be loud and mashed just to punch through it. It might be that
> WPLJ, in the early years, was so dramatically louder than anything
> else that it became the standard. Larry Berger might have been the
> first PD to crank it up. Those who followed followed the tradition
> and "improved" on it as new processors allowed it. On a specrum
> analyzer, WPLJ has no energy above 10KHz and the audio was/is so
> dense that there's no dynamic range. I can only image what the
> WPLJ-HD (when it comes) processing will be. You ain't heard loud, yet.
>
> California, historically, has revered good quality radio, both in
> programming and technical quality. There's no comparison between New
> York radio and San Francisco. Maybe the risk in New York is too
> great. Once you lose your position it's almost impossible to regain
> it. That will be painfully obvious to WCBS-FM. New York radio seems
> to either sit tight or make stupid decisions, then spend years and
> repeated format changes trying to recover.
>
> I believe you're hearing good processing in San Francisco. Except for
> WQXR and the NPR stations I doubt you'll hear it in New York or in
> many places on the East Coast. For AM, that's understandable. The
> spectrum here is so jammed up that you need high power and heavy
> processing to punch through. As AM IBUZ proliferates it'll become
impossible.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Wood
> Rich Wood Multimedia
> Phone: 413-303-9084
> FAX: 413-480-0010
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/