The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
You do the master, and the the radio stations add their own flavor. What do you think?
Old 23rd March 2021
  #1
Gear Nut
 
You do the master, and the the radio stations add their own flavor. What do you think?

Quick pop into the Mastering Forum to ask how do pro mastering engineers feel about radio stations that use processors like https://www.orban.com/optimodfm-8700i to "homogenize" the "sonic signature" of their broadcast. Does mastering become irrelevant at that point?
Do you instinctively compensate in your workflow to account for downstream processing?
Can we think of these processors be a sort of auto-mastering unit on their own?

Cheers,
Paul
Old 23rd March 2021
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Trakworx's Avatar
 
Verified Member
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
It's been this way since before I can remember so I don't ever think about it.

It does put a heavy footprint on top of the mastering but mastering is still relevant in that a well balanced track will withstand radio station processing better.

I don't do anything special to account for radio processors. Each station sounds different so that would be impossible.

Yes they are a sort of an auto-mastering, but a pretty bad one in most cases. It's part of the compromises they make in order to overcome the various technical limitations of broadcasting.
Old 23rd March 2021
  #3
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
This has always been the case. Why would it make mastering irrelevant? A graphic EQ on a home system doesn't, why would this?
Old 23rd March 2021
  #4
Lives for gear
 
scraggs's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Yep, same. I never think about it either.

Gotta say I still enjoy the sound of radio compression on classic rock.
Old 23rd March 2021 | Show parent
  #5
Gear Maniac
 
darkalex's Avatar
 
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by scraggs ➡️
Yep, same. I never think about it either.

Gotta say I still enjoy the sound of radio compression on classic rock.
Is there a way to intentionally simulate this compression?

Like adding this on music to get that radio rock sound even if those tracks never make it to the radio
Old 23rd March 2021
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
I see a new plugin coming > the Optimod, “what does your master sound like after processing”
Old 23rd March 2021 | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Trakworx's Avatar
 
Verified Member
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkalex ➡️
Is there a way to intentionally simulate this compression?

Like adding this on music to get that radio rock sound even if those tracks never make it to the radio
https://www.stereotool.com/
Old 23rd March 2021
  #8
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Radio stations processing is variable, but not so much within a particular music genre, and within a particular market. Large markets are more competitive, and the harsh reality that everybody eventually finds out is you can't keep turning it up. There's a practical maximum for any processor, any architecture, above which things just get nasty. So the processing variables are not that great.

Radio processing involves five general stages: slow compression (just to set up levels for the next steps) multi-band compression, multi-band limiting (these two might be combined), high frequency limiting, peak limiting and clipping. Recognize any of these? You've used some or all in mastering at some point. So if you do some aggressive peak limiting, you must then also assume the broadcast processor will do more, often much more. And what then happens when you do twice or 3X as much short term peak limiting? The only way around this is for one of you to do less, and I promise you, that's not going to be the station. They're in a head-to-head loudness war with the other stations on the dial, and they're up against a hard FCC maximum limit that is peak based. FM stations use pre-emphasis, that's a HF boost of 17.5dB at 15kHz relative to 400Hz. That was great when FM was young and there wasn't much high level high end in recordings, but now we're slamming stuff up there pretty hard. Something has to give or the FM station will exceed FCC limits. The first part is HF limiting, that simply dulls the high end. The second part is clipping post pre-emphasis, which isn't as awful as broadband clipping, but still brings distortion way up very fast. HF limiting and clipping work with each other. Clipping prevents the HF limiting from dulling too much, and HF limiting prevents the clipper from getting too distorted. And in a modern digital processor, many of the different stages interact or are designed to compliment each other with a degree of benefit.

All of that WILL change your mastering. And with 5 bands of multi-band processing earlier in the chain, you've got a lot going on.

It turns out, the less smashing you do in mastering, the cleaner and louder your stuff will sound on the air. It sounds counter-intuitive, but if you think about it, when mastering what happens if you do much more of what you're doing in dynamics processing? It gets messy, right? Well, that's what's going to happen on the radio, with the added high frequency dulling. Pushing the high end harder to beat the dulling goes backwards, it just gets even duller.

Your stuff will always sound better on the air with less aggressive mastering. If you're not considering broadcast processing while mastering, you're not doing your client any favors. Of course, the compromise may be difficult.

HD Radio doesn't have the high frequency pre-emphasis issue, but the goal is to have analog FM and HD "match" in character, because the analog is the fall-back when the HD fails (which happens a lot) and the transition is supposed to be as seamless as possible.
Old 23rd March 2021 | Show parent
  #9
Lives for gear
 
scraggs's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
It turns out, the less smashing you do in mastering, the cleaner and louder your stuff will sound on the air.
Yep. This is why classic rock sounds good and modern rock sounds like unlistenable static.
Old 23rd March 2021 | Show parent
  #10
Gear Guru
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
if not using broadcast processors for mastering already (which i sometimes do as they offer an amazing level of control), i use them on my 2trk return to get a somewhat better idea on how the master might sound on the radio.

i'm using tc and jünger processors here (and i had an orban in earlier days).
Old 24th March 2021 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
if not using broadcast processors for mastering already (which i sometimes do as they offer an amazing level of control), i use them on my 2trk return to get a somewhat better idea on how the master might sound on the radio.

i'm using tc and jünger processors here (and i had an orban in earlier days).
I find this slightly amusing. Broadcast processors, nearly all of them for many years, include the "stereo generator" of necessity, because the final processing stages relate closely to that function. As a result they output a single "composite" signal that includes L+R (main channel) the L-R Double Sideband, Suppressed Carrier sub-channel, and 19kHz pilot.

The Orban 8100A has no provision for sampling a processed, de-emphasized stereo output directly. The 8100ST "Studio Chassis" includes only the two-band compressor and limiter, not the HF limiter and clipper. The XT chassis worked only with the 8100, and provided a external 6 band processor, but again, no sample point to use for a monitor.

The only way you can possibly use that to even slightly predict what your stuff will sound like is to demodulate the composite baseband signal through a stereo demodulator. Got one of those? I didn't think so.

The TC product line doesn't include anything approximating an FM broadcast processor. The Junger has an "FM Conditioner" function that may provide some means of monitoring, provided you supply your own de-emphasis network, but honestly, nobody uses that thing for FM broadcast. It's either Orban or Omnia, except for the little stations that won't pay up for the good stuff.

So I don't know what you're listening to, or using to master. More detail would be educational.

Mastering with an FM Broadcast processor would be a terrible idea, though.
Old 24th March 2021
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Yes, you don’t want that being part of your master but having it in your monitoring path as monitor C or D could be handy. Just to crosscheck translation. Not worth buying a processor for, but if one cheap plugin could emulate that.
Old 24th March 2021 | Show parent
  #13
Gear Guru
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
I find this slightly amusing. Broadcast processors, nearly all of them for many years, include the "stereo generator" of necessity, because the final processing stages relate closely to that function. As a result they output a single "composite" signal that includes L+R (main channel) the L-R Double Sideband, Suppressed Carrier sub-channel, and 19kHz pilot.

The Orban 8100A has no provision for sampling a processed, de-emphasized stereo output directly. The 8100ST "Studio Chassis" includes only the two-band compressor and limiter, not the HF limiter and clipper. The XT chassis worked only with the 8100, and provided a external 6 band processor, but again, no sample point to use for a monitor.

The only way you can possibly use that to even slightly predict what your stuff will sound like is to demodulate the composite baseband signal through a stereo demodulator. Got one of those? I didn't think so.

The TC product line doesn't include anything approximating an FM broadcast processor. The Junger has an "FM Conditioner" function that may provide some means of monitoring, provided you supply your own de-emphasis network, but honestly, nobody uses that thing for FM broadcast. It's either Orban or Omnia, except for the little stations that won't pay up for the good stuff.

So I don't know what you're listening to, or using to master. More detail would be educational.

Mastering with an FM Broadcast processor would be a terrible idea, though.
rather arrogant to critique a process if you do not know what gear me or the radio stations are using and with what settings... - hint:
- for playback, the same (both the processors and settings) as i installed and programmed for several stations/networks around here, although some go back many years but are still in use; of course some functions are switched off as they are unnecessary in this context but still give a more educated view on things than not using these processors.
- for mastering, still the same gear as it offers some processing not normally found in most 'regular' dynamic processors.
Old 24th March 2021 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
rather arrogant to critique a process if you do not know what gear me or the radio stations are using and with what settings...
Well, sorry if I seem arrogant. But do I know exactly what radio stations are using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
- hint:
- for playback, the same (both the processors and settings) as i installed and programmed for several stations/networks around here, although some go back many years but are still in use; of course some functions are switched off as they are unnecessary in this context but still give a more educated view on things than not using these processors.
Specifically? Exact models?
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
- for mastering, still the same gear as it offers some processing not normally found in most 'regular' dynamic processors.
Again...specifically?

I've highlighted why FM processors won't work in that application. Please let me know how you use them anyway.
Old 24th March 2021
  #15
Lives for gear
 
deondamage's Avatar
This question would only be relevant if the radio station`s footprint was only on a select few tracks and nothing on others. Every sound system has it`s own foot print as well. Listening to an unmastered track on a crappy bluetooth speaker, sounds worse than the mastered version.
Old 24th March 2021 | Show parent
  #16
Gear Guru
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
Well, sorry if I seem arrogant. But do I know exactly what radio stations are using.
do you?! pretty bold claim (or even arrogant...) unless you're working for the authorities which in some countries/for some stations make specific gear mandatory - be assured that this is (still) not the case everywhere, at least not in large parts of the third world (or then gets neglected) but not even in all places in the old world...

[i know a bit as i get to service/rebuild radio stations in areas of conflict and war zones, mainly as part of my job for the un blue helmets and the osce but also as a member of privately organized network of engineers]

Quote:
I've highlighted why FM processors won't work in that application. Please let me know how you use them anyway.
where did i mention fm processors specifically or exclusively?!

i'm using old tc dbmax, more modern tc db4/8 mkII, various very old jünger d0x and way more modern jünger slim line processors, dap4 lm/flx soecifically - i admit i got not much experience with orban gear though...

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 24th March 2021 at 10:38 AM..
Old 24th March 2021
  #17
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Well this topic went down hill in a hurry...MTCW

I guess my way of doing things is to do a good master and not worry about how it will be used later but if the client has a specific request I will try and do what they want done be it for streaming or CD release.

Most of what I do today is for streaming so I use this plug in to check for proper levels https://youlean.co/youlean-loudness-meter/ (Pro Version)

I own "stereo tool" but only use the Azimuth corrector part for restoration work. You can, if you want, spend a lot of money buying the various other parts of this plugin.

FWIW
Old 24th March 2021 | Show parent
  #18
Gear Guru
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
no doubt it did...

..but i refuse to be hold to account!

on the contary actually, i'll gladly repeat my suggestion to use devices originally designed fro broadcasting in mastering, be it on the tracks/for the task at hand or in the return/monitor path - the former 'cause some devices use unique processing tools not normally found in more simple gear used by many mastering 'engineers' (just have a look at tc dbmax' 5-band expander, compressor and limiter or jünger 's d01x so-called 'multiloop' compressors or the dap4's dynamic eq/spectral signature tool and the level magic); the latter to get an idea how much damage possibly can get done from widely used processing alone, even before signals get squeezed into a form which then can get aired/distributed via antenna.

personally, i find jünger's processing outstanding and i can strongly recommend to at least check out their product brief if not getting one of their processors: i'm sure anyone with some experience in mastering tracks can easily imagine how some of these features can be valuable in mastering - some of the processing is available in form of a plug-in btw (flux/jünger).

also worth noting: i have some musicians come to my place for mastering not least for hearing their tracks getting processed by 'real' broadcast processors - ymmv...
Old 24th March 2021 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
do you?! pretty bold claim (or even arrogant...) unless you're working for the authorities which in some countries/for some stations make specific gear mandatory - be assured that this is (still) not the case everywhere, at least not in large parts of the third world (or then gets neglected) but not even in all places in the old world...
I hate blowing my own horn, and it really bugs me when someone else does it too. So I make the following statements with resistance, but it seems required: I've been a broadcast engineer since 1974, and been in radio since 1969. I've been Chief Engineer and Director of Engineering at several stations, currently I'm a free-lance engineer and have 7 stations as regular clients, four are FM. I've built studios, installed transmitters, designed mixing consoles, and yes, even was part of a design team that built an FM audio processor.

I installed the first Orban 8000 in my area. I have two 8100s in my workshop right now. I do know, exactly, what stations have on the air in my market and even how they are set up. I'm in a major US market. (This is not a full resume by any means, and I apologize if it seems arrogant.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
[i know a bit as i get to service/rebuild radio stations in areas of conflict and war zones, mainly as part of my job for the un blue helmets and the osce but also as a member of privately organized network of engineers]
Nice to see you have some experience, but I'm still confused as to how you think you could use an Optimod in mastering, or any application besides on-air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
where did i mention fm processors specifically or exclusively?!
You didn't, but that is now important because what you've said makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
i'm using old tc dbmax, more modern tc db4/8 mkII, various very old jünger d0x and way more modern jünger slim line processors, dap4 lm/flx soecifically - i admit i got not much experience with orban gear though...
None of those will replicate on-air FM processing well at all, but may be useful tools in mastering, if easy to abuse.

You said you used Orban processors for mastering and checking your mastering. I say, probably not, nor can they be used that way easily or directly. Yet, Orban and Omnia digital processor products are the most common processors on FM stations in the world. No current FM broadcast product from either company can (or should) be directly used for mastering. If you wanted to simulate an FM station with one of them, at very least you'd need a low-power transmitter that will accept a composite input, and a tuner, or a broadcast stereo demodulator that would provide an analog, discrete Left and Right output.

I'm saying that neither scenario is likely for anyone in mastering, though if a mastering lab did have that setup, it would be highly informative.

The other thing every mastering lab should have (but doesn't) is an artificial noise floor generator that mixes in a noise floor that matches the anticipated noise floor that their listener base is likely to have into the monitors only. The film industry has done this, it's very informative, but most mastering is done on the best possible monitors in the best acoustic environment, with only checking on smaller speakers.
Old 24th March 2021 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
no doubt it did...

..but i refuse to be hold to account!

on the contary actually, i'll gladly repeat my suggestion to use devices originally designed fro broadcasting in mastering, be it on the tracks/for the task at hand or in the return/monitor path - the former 'cause some devices use unique processing tools not normally found in more simple gear used by many mastering 'engineers' (just have a look at tc dbmax' 5-band expander, compressor and limiter or jünger 's d01x so-called 'multiloop' compressors or the dap4's dynamic eq/spectral signature tool and the level magic); the latter to get an idea how much damage possibly can get done from widely used processing alone, even before signals get squeezed into a form which then can get aired/distributed via antenna.

personally, i find jünger's processing outstanding and i can strongly recommend to at least check out their product brief if not getting one of their processors: i'm sure anyone with some experience in mastering tracks can easily imagine how some of these features can be valuable in mastering - some of the processing is available in form of a plug-in btw (flux/jünger).

also worth noting: i have some musicians come to my place for mastering not least for hearing their tracks getting processed by 'real' broadcast processors - ymmv...
I strong agree with the concept in principle. I disagree that this is directly possible with the most common broadcast devices. I also think that the various multi-band plugins misrepresent the broadcast result for quite a list of technical reasons. But it's still a good idea in principle.
Old 25th March 2021
  #21
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Bob Orban recommends leaving brick wall limiting and clipping off for the best sounding results on the air. The problem with that is getting your record past the programming meetings where it will be considered for airplay.
Old 25th March 2021 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
Bob Orban recommends leaving brick wall limiting and clipping off for the best sounding results on the air. The problem with that is getting your record past the programming meetings where it will be considered for airplay.
Unless you have the exact quote, I'm going to say that's apocryphal. The entire point of even the first commercial Optimod, the 8000, was the precision peak control created by the final limiter, clipper, and phase-optimized filters. Until he introduced that, FM processing was just fast, brick wall limiters and brutal clippers, and the overshoots where huge. Clipping a pre-emphasized wave, then sending it through a 15kHz high-order low pass filter results in massive overshoots. We had to hold back the peak threshold to make room for them, which resulted in loss of maximum loudness.

Orban's first patent deals specifically with precision limiting and clipping in band-limited systems, the exact problem I just described.

Nobody would turn off the limiting and clipping in an Orban processor on-air, and it is a very big stretch of the imagination to think Bob Orban would have suggested that. The only way that would sound "good" is it would be a very low distortion signal on the quietest station on the dial. In radio, loud tends to win, and that was Orban's entire purpose of the 8000. I turned the FM processing industry on it's nose, and that was in the mid 1970s.
Old 25th March 2021
  #23
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Orban was talking about how to get the best results from airplay on stations that are USING HIS precision limiting and clipping. This began as a conversation I had with him at an NAB convention. He and Frank Foti went on to co-write a paper making this point:https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9812
Old 25th March 2021 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➡️
Orban was talking about how to get the best results from airplay on stations that are USING HIS precision limiting and clipping. This began as a conversation I had with him at an NAB convention. He and Frank Foti went on to co-write a paper making this point:https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9812
Thanks you for the clarification. Your post #21 certainly was vague enough to be interpreted differently (as I did).

In the cited paper, Orban and Foti make this recommendation:

"We therefore recommend that record companies provide broadcasters with radio mixes. These can have all of the equalization, slow compression, and other effects that producers and mastering engineers use artistically to achieve a desired “sound.” What these radio mixes should not have is fast digital limiting and clipping. Leave the short-term envelopes unsquashed. Let the broadcast processor do its work. The result will be just as loud on-air as hypercompressed material, but will have far more punch, clarity, and life.

A second recommendation to the record industry is to employ studio or mastering processing that provides the desired sonic effect, but without the undesired extreme distortion component that clipping creates. The alternative to brute-force clipping is digital look-ahead limiting, which is already widely available to the recording industry from a number of different manufacturers (including the authors’ companies). This processing creates lower modulation distortion than clipping and also avoids blatant flat-topping of waveforms. Compared to clipping, it is therefore substantially more compatible with broadcast processing. Nevertheless, even digital limiting can have a deleterious effect on sound quality by reducing the peak-to-average ratio of the signal to the point that the broadcast processor responds to it in an unnatural way, so it should be used conservatively. Ultimately, the only way to tell how one’s production processing will interact with a broadcast processor is to actually apply the processed signal to a real-world broadcast processor and to listen to its output, preferably through a typical consumer radio.


The first specific recommendation is for mastering to not include short-term peak limiting and clipping for the special "radio mixes" they are suggesting studios provide to broadcasters. So far, this is not being universally done. And they were not recommending no peak limiting or clipping unless it was for a specific radio mix.

The second recommendation is to use more sophisticated look-ahead limiting.

The third recommendation is to evaluate the process by listening through a broadcast processor via a typical consumer radio, which, as should be obvious, will require a transmitter too. Which is what I've said. You can't listen to a broadcast processor directly as it outputs a pre-emphasized composite signal. And unless you listen through the whole broadcast processor, all the way through to a radio, you simply aren't hearing what's being done.
Old 25th March 2021
  #25
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
For a long time my mentor use to have a small FM transmitter (100 mw) and a small consumer FM receiver he would listen to his commercial mixes on. This was in the days before all the fancy compressors etc were common in FM radio stations. He gave up his setup as soon as the first Orban processor came out. It did give him some idea of how things would sound but...it was never 100%. FWIW
Old 25th March 2021 | Show parent
  #26
Gear Guru
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe ➡️
For a long time my mentor use to have a small FM transmitter (100 mw) and a small consumer FM receiver he would listen to his commercial mixes on. This was in the days before all the fancy compressors etc were common in FM radio stations. He gave up his setup as soon as the first Orban processor came out. It did give him some idea of how things would sound but...it was never 100%. FWIW
that's the point: there are (almost) always practical, functional and aesthetical aspects to consider when 'touching' sound but there are also (almost) always logistical and financial limits (and a time frame) within which things need to get done...

mixing/mastering in a way that it may sound nice on fm radio is as hard to achieve as mixing/mastering in a way that it may sound nice on a pa: there ain't no generic pa either! and we're not even talking about the setup/alignment and even less about the room/venue...

what gives you a reasonably good idea how things will sound like then? - my suggestion was to use similar gear and apply functions as needed; for my needs, that's mostly enough* but anyone free to go full tilt and set up his/her own bonsai radio feed.



* regarding my analogy to live sound: i do use a horn-loaded system for mixing/mastering in an attempt to emulate (some of) the baviour of a pa if i know mixes/masters are going to be played back on pa's exclusively but i don't set up one of my pa systems either, even if i'd be mixing/mastering in a very large room.



p.s. we're having the same discussion about using originals vs clones all the time (which imo are pretty much pointless): get the real deal if you can afford it - try coming as close as you possibly can if you can't afford it.

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 25th March 2021 at 05:20 PM.. Reason: p.s. added
Old 25th March 2021 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Guru
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
p.p.s. i was never happy with how orban processors squashed average mixes from an aesthetical point of view...

...although for sure they did their job in terms of functional aspect (not overloading the transmitter) - could be though that the folks who set them up were not at the top of their game?

___


tc then made their affordable and easy to use range of finalizer products which - i not over-used - imo resulted in more tolerable sound. they were still pretty far from jünger which imo simply sounded better although their limiter was un-usable...
...so for a couple of years, i combined both of them to mimick (to some extent) the effects of various broadcast limiters.

___


these days, i'm using a whole bunch of processors for mastering, including broadcast processors but also gear typically used in live sound - my setup looks like this:

weiss eq1
weiss ds1
waves maxx bcl
tc finalizer 96
drawmer 2476
lake lm44
crane song hedd192
jünger accent 2
junger dap4 lm/flx
tc db4 mkII

not always all of them, never all functions of every processor, not necessarily in this order and not all of them for mastering per se but on the 2trk return.

oh, and i like what my desk does so add a studer vista to the processors!

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 25th March 2021 at 06:05 PM..
Old 25th March 2021 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
p.p.s. i was never happy with how orban processors squashed average mixes from an aesthetical point of view...

...although for sure they did their job in terms of functional aspect (not overloading the transmitter) - could be though that the folks who set them up were not at the top of their game?
Each device, even those from 40 years ago, has a wide palette of adjustments and settings provided to allow the device to be used with any type of music on any station.

Before blaming the folks that set them up, though, please understand the nature and purpose of broadcast processing.

1. To keep modulation within legal limits - first and foremost
2. To raise the relative loudness of the station to be competitive with other stations playing similar music (this is the original loudness war).
3. At very least, to raise average modulation levels so they are above the noise floor, both received and local acoustic noise.

When it comes to item #2 , the choices are completely subjective, and decisions are often made by people other than those making the adjustments. It's not so much a question of competence, as a question of who wants to put their signature stamp on the sound of the station.

For the record, most engineers would process much more conservatively if they had the choice. And they usually don't.
___
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
...so for a couple of years, i combined both of them to mimick (to some extent) the effects of various broadcast limiters.

___


these days, i'm using a whole bunch of processors for mastering, including broadcast processors but also gear typically used in live sound - my setup looks like this:

weiss eq1
weiss ds1
waves maxx bcl
tc finalizer 96
drawmer 2476
lake lm44
crane song hedd192
jünger accent 2
junger dap4 lm/flx
tc db4 mkII

not always all of them, never all functions of every processor, not necessarily in this order and not all of them for mastering per se but on the 2trk return.

oh, and i like what my desk does so add a studer vista to the processors!
Wow. Yikes. That's just...yeah. Wow.
Old 25th March 2021 | Show parent
  #29
Gear Guru
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
(...) Wow. Yikes. That's just...yeah. Wow.
now that's exactly the attitude with which i'm having an issue!

i do not care for what application any piece of gear was designed as long as it offers me a featureset and performance which i consider to be helpful to fulfill a specific task...

...and every damn broadcast processor IS helpful when it comes to control level - which is a requirement not only in broadcasting but also in mixing live and in the studio.

besides, around here throughout the 80's and 90's, for the small privately run radio stations it was very common to use whatever gear was at hand in their smallish studio and only use (old but properly working) specific broadcast gear from the national broadcaster before hitting the antenna: i've seen literally everything from aphex to massenburg!
Old 25th March 2021 | Show parent
  #30
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
now that's exactly the attitude with which i'm having an issue!

i do not care for what application any piece of gear was designed as long as it offers me a featureset and performance which i consider to be helpful to fulfill a specific task...
Ok. Wouldn't that be nice if it was that simple.

But it's not. If you're trying to simulate what a station does to your mix, you can't wing it. You need an actual broadcast processor. Few, if any, of your studio plugins or hardware include pre-emphasis, and HF processing, with clipping post pre-emphasis. None include the L+R/L-R matrix. Are any limited to 15 or 17kHz by a high performance LPF? Nope. So, what do you think you're hearing?

You can't monitor the output of a broadcast processor directly because its output is a single BNC connector that spits out the pre-ephasized "composite baseband" signal, which is used to modulate the transmitter directly. You would need to send that to a transmitter, then a receiver. As many times as I've said that here, nobody's actually reported doing exactly that today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
...and every damn broadcast processor IS helpful when it comes to control level - which is a requirement not only in broadcasting but also in mixing live and in the studio.
...which is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
besides, around here throughout the 80's and 90's, for the small privately run radio stations it was very common to use whatever gear was at hand in their smallish studio and only use (old but properly working) specific broadcast gear from the national broadcaster before hitting the antenna: i've seen literally everything from aphex to massenburg!
What has that to do with anything? You're not mastering for the tiny stations, are you?

If you mix and master for a destination(s) and don't simulate that destination, I can't imagine how you think know what your'e getting.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 7 views: 3378
Avatar for DeGomez&Garcia
DeGomez&Garcia 25th July 2005
replies: 12 views: 4080
Avatar for tpad
tpad 25th December 2012
replies: 605 views: 120180
Avatar for mexicanradio
mexicanradio 3rd March 2021
replies: 61 views: 4066
Avatar for frenzy
frenzy 24th May 2020
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump