Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- From: kludge@xxxxxxxxx (Scott Dorsey)
- Date: 4 Jul 2006 11:58:43 -0400
TimPerry <timperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
all processing, nessessarily, is disabled when doing a "proof".
(and usully tower lights too)
this means proof of performance compliance would not have an effect on the
sonic qualities you are objecting to.
Right. Proof of performance measurements on the audio side aren't really
very important these days. But proofs on the RF side are still really just
as necessary as they always were. Antennas are not much different than they
were in the sixties, and more importantly the world around the antennas keeps
changing. And as those changes take place, the antenna patterns are altered
and the station coverage changes.
NRSC was basically an attempt to standardize AM emphasis and
modulation envelope the way the FM stuff was standardized from the
beginning. It is good in that it provides at least some minimal
standards, but it's bad because it limits the total bandwidth
possible. Before the NRSC stuff was required, you could run out to
15 KHz response on AM as long as there was nothing on adjacent
channels and no interference resulted.
you could modulate to 100% ... higher on the positive peaks. some AM
transmitters would pass an FM proof but not all antenna systems would allow
that much bandwidth. this was one factor in the problems with am-stereo.
(not the biggest though... that takes a government)
It's now becoming the major problem with AM-IBOC. Too few of the AM antenna
systems, especially directional arrays with phasors, have the bandwidth to
broadcast the baseband audio plus the IBOC carriers properly.
you can still modulate to 100%, you just keep to your own playground without
trashing first adjacent channels.
Right. The NRSC modulation requirements aren't a bad thing, what is bad is
the bandwidth requirement. I think having a standard emphasis curve is a
huge improvement, though, and it's the one thing that makes NRSC an overall
win.
But now we have the Clear Channel folks deciding that they are going
to limit all their AM stations to 5 KHz total, because it will sound
louder and most cheap radios don't have any wider bandwidth anyway.
that dude has been shelved.... i haven't heard of them pushing that nonsense
lately... they moved on to the "less is more" campaign.
I'll believe it when I actually hear good audio on the air... and it does
happen sometimes.
None of the issues are technical, they are all political. Although I
can name at least one station around here that is badly
overmodulating, because the clueless program director is their acting
engineer.
some markets are very loud with everyone cranked up to max plus composite
clipping.
the stations that dont have the clippers either overmodulate or lose revinue
and ratings.
maybe it a clueless engineer acting as a program director?
He ain't got no First Phone, he's not an engineer. Although I'll say that
this is a small market and has escaped some of the worst of the loudness
wars, although there are certainly a few of the larger stations here that
are flat to the wall.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- From: TimPerry
- Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- From: Julian
- Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- References:
- Methods for cencoring swear words.
- From: Beauchampy
- Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- From: TimPerry
- Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- From: Scott Dorsey
- Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- From: TimPerry
- Methods for cencoring swear words.
- Prev by Date: Re: Spaced omnis and spaced speakers
- Next by Date: Re: PCM wav file to numeric output
- Previous by thread: Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- Next by thread: Re: Methods for cencoring swear words.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|