[BC] Digital Intgerference

[Robert Orban]

At 12:13 PM 12/18/2005, you wrote:
>From: Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] Digital Intgerference (was AM Interference)
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <43A5845A.6080400 at broadcast.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Rich Wood wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>WPLJ is on and it is (was) equally as cruched as the analog.    Funny
>thing, I am hearing a lot of tweaking lately, HD processing changes,
>playing with diversity delay and other stuff. This morning WPLJ HD was
>slightly less painfull than the main channel.
>
>The problem is either you make things blend well and HD sounds like
>analog OR you make it different and the blending becomes a distraction.

I think you can do this artistically so that the HD "pops" more without the 
switching becoming an irritant (certainly no more so than the current 
signal-adaptive stereo/mono blending that happens in analog FM reception). 
I would set the HD loudness about 1 dB higher than the analog -- it's the 
old "speaker salesman's trick" to make something sound bigger, and in this 
case, it will complement the HD's inherent punch compared to analog because 
of the 5 dB gain difference in the radio between them. Also, it's important 
to use the entire peak dynamic range available on the digital channel. Let 
the peaks go to 0 dBfs and adjust the digital channel loudness via the 
final limiter drive control in the audio processor.

Bob Orban