[BC] Oh No another automation comparison question

Thu Sep 14 12:37:01 CDT 2006

Remember the old saying about how if something 'doesn't sound right on a
small speaker, it won't get any better on big ones"?

 With enough time - even simple computer programmers can be 'radio
announcers' because they have all the time in the world to edit out and fix
the mistakes. They can make 'Perfect Radio.'  Is that what you're saying?

 Get a few days worth of programming in the can... put the first one on the
air... and keep doing it.  That should really be 'perfect radio'.

  I have also heard the complaint that 'you never tell us what you're
playing'.

To me...
   there's a big difference between programming computers, and programming
entertainment... knowing what you want to get OUT of either is where it all
starts, and some automation systems are not conducive to interactive
programming.  They are "live-assist" rather than "live".  And copying
someone else's talent isn't the way to do it.  How long has it been since
you played in a local club for a few thousand folks... and seen their
reaction to what you do for a living??

  Even "I"  can program my automation system to (a) schedule spots and
schedule songs or I can let RCS do that , or, I can (b) lay things out so
that it will turn on-turn off the RPU system so that I may also do *live*
voiceovers from a remote site... while I am concurrently controlling the
on-air music, spots, etc.  from the remote site... and still hit the post
for network stuff from the remote site... without time compression OR
letting the autmation system choose the 'proper' song FOR me.  I have
figured out ways to make it *sound like* that was what I was doing, just to
demonstrate it could be done, for the PD and GM, which is a lot like the
picture you see on a TV screen as you point the sending camera at its own
monitor...

or, alternatively, I done it on the fly so I could take care of 'breaking
news' stuff within a few minutes.  Our system can be set up to do the
"sequencing" within the "scheduled" times.  DId it sound bad?  No, in fact,
I had people listening in downtown Dallas on a regular basis every afternoon
for companies like Metro Networks, Xerox, and a few other piddly companies.
They made weird comments, like how 'you guys sound pretty good... They
listened because I was as good as everything else on the dial... but I
'sounded better'... was 'more interesting'... didn't 'play the same thing
every day'...   a few of the clubs asked me to provide extended dance
remixes or at least asked if they could roll tape on my afternoon program
and pick stuff out they could use later that night ( No, you may not, but,
yes, I do have a company... was the  answer.)  and we're just a pissant
station on the fringe of Hickville.

   I can be a very good computer programmer.  I can be a very good air
talent.
You can too.   BUT...

   What has that to do with  good live radio?  Where the immediacy??

  All this (to me) has to do with my being able to make any system produce
what I need when I need it and - depending on the time constraints - do it
very quickly and very consistantly. Or, plot and plan and scheme and
preprogram, then execute flawlessly.

 But not predictably (some club owners literally ghost check stations and
can tell you what your rotation is for EVERY current you play.  It's all
some people have to do!! It takes about a week to figure out what you're
doing after you've scrambled things around hoping they won't be able to do
figure it out again... Southern Junction, Rockwall. A few of the rigs in
West End.  )

The simple part-
  How simple is Simple?  How about "yes"-"no"-"talk"-"more".  All the
commands you need, according to Hollyanne...  I can program that unit to do
anything needed for its role, too.  simple? DOS is a very simple language.
The programs created by it, however,  are as complicated as the user wants
to make them.  Still "simple"..? Not to the beginner.
Neither are some of the automation systems out there.  Nor the reason why we
do what we do the way we do.

  My point in all this is...  a very few people somewhere seem to respond to
what they hear more quickly than they do other things.  There's some
intuitive thing that happens, such as when you played a sound, and it was
wrong, you learned... it's easier for some people (like me) to understand,
and correct immediately, the sound made by a tonearm skidding across a
record than it is to understand and correct a program error you made a day
and a half ago.  Or four hours ago.  and you tell about your talent level by
the way you handle the unanticipated stuff that happens during your
airshift.

   With enough time - even simple computer programmers can be 'radio
announcers' because they have all the time in the world to edit.  Audacity
can do that.
Even reel-reel would do that. so will a cassette deck (granted, it needs to
be stereo, unless you are on an AM station, huh ;-)

   does that make them better radio personalities/programmers?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Wood" <richwood at pobox.com>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [BC] Oh No another automation comparison question

> ------ At 11:07 PM 9/13/2006, JYRussell at academicplanet.com wrote: -------
>
> >If you grew up in radio with tapes and 45's and carts... you remember how
> >there is a bit of 'something' to the sound created by a real human
starting
> >and stopping elements and spots and songs and that automation still
doesn't
> >do without extraordinary amounts of pre-planning...  Being able to 'slip
> >cue' a song to a certain point, or time a pre-recorded element to an
exact
> >spot, adds to the 'live' feeling, and, not all autmation systems will
allow
> >it in real time, doubly so with the older one-in / one-out soundcards,
or -
> >ugh - SoundBlasters.
>
> Most of what you mention causes listeners to complain. In many
> formats talking up to a post will get complaints. "Shut up and play
> the music" is the normal response. Even the simplest audio editor
> will allow you to edit to a point with far more accuracy than a human
> with vinyl, let alone a CD. Very few digital systems I've seen won't
> allow you to backtime/deadroll a cut to end at a very specific time.
> Some will even let you compress, without changing pitch, a song to
> meet that time constraint, within a reasonable latitude. At WOR we
> had an Internet music format run on an Enco system. I've dealt with
> automation since the days of big iron. The ease with which a cut
> could be coded to start, stop, trimmed, backtimed - you name it - was
> amazing. Cut information can be included to feed an Internet display,
> IBUZ, RDS or anything that would accept an ASCII stream. The company
> would program whatever you needed to make that stream useful.
>
> A person with an intimate understanding of automation can make a
> station sound every bit as live as the human jock who forgets to
> start the backtimed/deadrolled cut. To make a voicetracked format
> sound live takes a great deal of talent and the ability to hear a
> song in his or her head if the system doesn't have the ability to
> play intros and outros while cutting the tracks.
>
> >   with a bit more 'horsepower' in your automation rig, though, you *can*
> >play everything from the format within the exact time frame, and the
exact
> >manner needed by the consultants and PD and *still* not sound repetitive.
>
> You're confusing automation that sequences events with scheduling
> systems. Digital audio systems don't schedule. They sequence.
> Selector schedules music and traffic systems like Marketron schedule
> spots and non-music elements.
>
> >Being 'an announcer' is what works best with most automations systms,
> >though.   they are set up to play the stuff out while leaving you places
to
> >talk.  Period.
>
> No. Being a talent works best with automation. Automation is a
> versatile tool. What you do with it and how well is entirely up to
> you and your staff. Garbage in. Garbage out. Come to think of it,
> that works for "live" radio, too.
>
> >Don't expect 'Audacity', for example, to be a great on-air-live use
program.
> >Sure it *can* edit sounds, but it's a bit - ah... - rudimentary. - for
"real
> >radio".
>
> No. It works as well for "real radio" as any other editor. It's an
> editor. That's all.
>
> >   Playing 4 or 6 different soundfiles out of three or 4 soundcards while
> >hold the song (or whatever) you backtimed into a network... really
'jazzing
> >up' what you've go on the air... is a bit beyond many of the less
expensive
> >software - they still tend to choke.  Not enough inputs, or outputs, etc.
> >for 'real radio'.  Many softwares expect you to do your entire program
out
> >of ONE POT.   Is that real radio??
> >
> >   Be creative on the air.
>
> A poor performer blames his tools. Read recording magazines like Mix,
> ProSound News, TapeOp and EQ. You'll discover amazing things done
> with minimal tools. Remember, much of the music we revere so much was
> recorded in places with egg cartons on the walls. "Real Radio" is
> whatever comes out of the speaker. No listener cares how it got
> there. "Wow! Did you hear how he slip-cued that song" is rarely heard
> in our nation's cars.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Wood
> Rich Wood Multimedia
> Phone: 413-454-3258
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
> Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
> www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>