"Chronic Philharmonic" <karl.uppiano@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1ZULj.5732$tw3.1511@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "Serge Auckland" <sergeauckland@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:GZidnYi4Y4H6zWLanZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Don Pearce" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:47ff3bbc.187183906@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:59 +0100, "Serge Auckland"
>>> <sergeauckland@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mr.T" <MrT@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:47feff9a$0$13113$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> "Soundhaspriority" <moreinwebreg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C42537E1.45506%moreinwebreg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> "Robert Orban" <donotreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> > Orban today announced that
>>>>>> > the first public beta of Orban Loudness Meter software for
>>>>>> > Windows XP and Vista is now available for free download
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my long computing experience, you get what you pay for.
>>>>>
>>>>> In *my* long computing experience, price has very little
relation****p
>>>>> to
>>>>> quality. I would have thought Microsoft was enough proof of that.
>>>>> There are freeware packages available not bettered by more costly
>>>>> ones.
>>>>> However Bobs press relase makes it clear this is a "stripped"
version
>>>>> of a
>>>>> commercial package, often a very cost effective solution I find, if
it
>>>>> fills
>>>>> your requirements. And a great way to get people to try it and
>>>>> possibly
>>>>> upgrade. That's what this marketing model is all about after all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought Orban was dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> MrT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Agreed. A free-of-charge working but stripped-down version is often
very
>>>>welcome. As to Orban being dead, the Optimod is still the best and
most
>>>>widely used audio processor. The 8500 is capable of excellent sound
>>>>quality
>>>>in the right hands. Listen to Radio France , France Musique, sometime
>>>>when
>>>>over there to see how good classical music can sound even after
>>>>processing.
>>>>
>>> Damning with faint praise! "Even after processing" is a very revealing
>>> phrase. It is like selling makeup with the slogan "It hardly makes you
>>> ugly at all".
>>>
>>> In these days of digital radio with decent signal to noise ratios,
>>> there is no place for devices like Optimod.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> d
>>
>>
>> Perhaps not with digital radio, provided that receiver manufacturers
>> actually implemented dynamic range control. However, much (most?)
>> listening is done on FM, and even AM, where processing has its uses. As
>> with everything, it all depends on how well something is done. Near me
in
>> Suffolk, there are two small stations, Star FM and 209Radio. Both
>> process, but in a car, both station have an excellent sound, especially
>> on speech.
>>
>> The Hospital Radio station I work with has a low-power AM license, and
>> without fairly heavy processing, it would be completely unusable. It's
>> marginal even so.
>>
>> Consequently, it's not correct to say there's no place for Optimods,
>> there are many cases where the Optimod is appropriate.
>
> Not only that, but the main reason "processing" came into widespread use
> was because commercial radio stations wanted to be louder than their
> competitors. The dynamic range of most commercially available program
> material doesn't exceed the dynamic range of FM (or AM in many
> situations). I am not referring to the recording medium itself (e.g.,
CD),
> I am referring to the dynamic range of the actual program material being
> broadcast. Even Nirvana is dead silent between tracks. Big deal.
>
> It would not surprise me if digital radio stations begin using audio
> processing when the competition begins to pick up. If you doubt me, look
> at what they're doing to CDs. Yet, CDs certainly have the dynamic range
to
> accommodate, without processing, any program material you'd care to
listen
> to. Audio processing (and sadly, its abuse) won't go away.
>
> Bob Orban was (and is) a respected audio engineer, and he was dedicated
to
> getting the best quality sound in spite of the loudness wars. I have to
> give him credit for that.
>
As far as I'm aware, most if not all UK digital station already do
process.
The BBC uses the Optimod 6200, which is Orban's specialist DAB/DSAT
processor. Parts of GCAP also use the 6200, other smaller stations have
used
the TC Finalizer and even Behringer. All do so to reduce the dynamic range
and increase loudness. Unfortunately, DAB/DSAT receiver manufacturers have
not universally implemented Dynamic Range Control on their receivers,
consequently Broadcasters have done what they've always done, and
processed
at source.
Processing on FM can be done well, bearing in mind the intended audience,
i.e. people in cars, ****table radios in kitchens and the like. Audiophiles
listening under ideal conditions just doesn't figure in Broadcasters'
thinking. BBC Radio 2 has an excellent sound on a ****table radio/in a car.
It's processing done well, for the intended audience.
S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com
|
