Re: [ARSCLIST] Classical Radio, was [ARSCLIST] Mercury co-founder Irving Green passes

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I think you're talking about compression, not limiting. Compression -- the
bane of commercial
> radio -- brings up what should be low-volume stuff like surface noise,
rumble and tape hiss to
> intolerable levels, until it smacks down levels any time a peak comes
along. End fidelity is worse
> than a bad cellphone. Hard limiting, which used to be more the norm of
broadcasters, prevents
> exceeding FCC standards for the signal. Something like a classical station
should stick to hard
> limiting, and set levels so it's used sparingly. Back in the OTR days,
broadcasters would use
> tasteful amounts of compression (really, more driving the system and then
having a limiter at the
> end so effective dynamic range was compressed from the harder-driven
minimum to the limited maximum)
> to make voices and effects more intelligable. This also worked with live
music in many cases,
> because true technical professionals were running the equipment and didn't
push anything over
> reasonable levels. This pumping, super-compression came later -- I think
it probably traces to 70's
> album-oriented-rock stations and was then taken to insane extremes by just
about all formats.
> Someone sold the FM crowd a bill of goods that this "improves" the signal
and "louder is better"
> because people gravitate toward the loudest thing on their dial. This is
debatable and Robert Orban
> has a very good white paper online about why super-compression going into
his FM processor is a very
> bad thing. But, the crunch-meisters seem to have won this debate for now.
I can't stand most new
> music because of this, aside from the fact that I find a lot of it
talentless crap. And the
> super-crunchers have even invaded the jazz arena, with some truly terrible
remasters put out in
> recent times. Hint to mastering engineers -- just because you have a new
digi-compressor toy doesn't
> mean it's appropriate to older music formats and recordings. What I
consider a very good blend of
> being truthful to the old tapes and yet adding some improvements through
modern technology are what
> Malcolm Addey and Ellen Fitton do with Mosaic's recent box sets. They're
able to take a variety of
> tapes made at a variety of times and places in a variety of conditions and
craft enough of a uniform
> sound that the box holds together and levels are consistent. But, each
session's unique properties
> shine through and they're not heavy-handed to try and "fix" technical or
acoustic conditions of the
> original sessions to suit modern tastes. Some specific examples are the
new Dizzy Gillespie box set,
> the Johnny Hodges set from a couple of years ago and the Count Basie Verve
set. Also all of the new,
> great "singles" album reissues. Special kudos to reissuing "The Brothers"
sax-fest and "JJ" by JJ
> Johnson. Since I wore those records out a long time ago, I was thrilled to
have better-sounding CD's
> to play.
>
> Anyway, bottom line is I totally agree with David -- modern FM processing
techniques are totally
> inappropriate for older music recordings. Our words fall on totally deaf
mega-glomerate ears,
> however.
>
One more thing...this "louder must be better" FM-signal attitude is based
mainly
on one specific segment of the listening demographic...the idi...er,
listeners...
who put thousand-watt systems in their motor vehicles, turn the bass control
as far up as it goes, and then demonstrate their "manhood" by cruising their
cities playing the bass lines of "Urban Dance" hits to a kilometer-square
audience through rolled-up windows (and deafening themselves in the process,
so the high volume levels eventually become a necessity so they can hear
SFA!)

Steven C. Barr