Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Industry Standards in radio?

This is topic Industry Standards in radio? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004526

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-01-2006, 08:47 AM:

I have to send some audio files to a guy at a radio station. He is going to make them into a radio commercial.

I made them into .aiff files, sampled at 44 kHz. then posted them on my webspace for him do download.

I get a call, this morning stating that the guy can't open the files. He tells me he wants me to re-encode them as MP3s. I explained that I made them into .aiff files because they have the highest quality out of all the formats I have available.

His answer to me was, "Yes, but MP3 is the industry standard..."

I call, "BULLSHIT!"...

Comments, please...

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-01-2006, 08:52 AM:

The guy is right. In fact, the broadcast industry probably has NO standards now. Some cling to the past(tape, reels, carts, DA-88,etc) , some mail media, some email MP3.

This is why the "digital AM & FM will fail," Bad programming, no creativity and also no audio quality.

I had better sound in 1977 on regular FM that I can receiver right now. Too bad. (XM rules)(Sure makes you appreciate that 35mm film standard.) Louis

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 03-01-2006, 10:58 AM:

The AM news station I interned at while at the money pit that is Brown Institute used mostly mp3's as well. They were only picky on the modulation of the file & how fast you burned it to a CD, if applicable. They also loved to use minimal bitrates, 96 kbps was the average file. [Mad]

Brown taught using Adobe Audition & Scott Studio media server systems. We only used carts during our first semesters. Beyond collegiate social problems, I was constantly frustrated by the school's teaching style. The school recruited so many people that had no technical know-how & the studio classes felt catered to them, anyone with any brains about a soundboard & entertaining content had to wait for the others to learn basic typing & math. Needless to say, most of those types interned at Clear Channel owned top-40 stations.

I was really engaged working in a news format, but I'm turing more towards broadcast engineering nowadays. Too broke to make the move to a job like that, tho. [Frown]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-01-2006, 12:58 PM:

Probably a good move, Steve. That job doesn't pay much these days.

I'm shocked to hear stations settling for mp3's, although I probably shouldn't be surprised. I made a trailer for Clear Channel stations a couple of years ago, and I told them I needed their v/o audio recorded as a 48KHz .wav or .aiff file... they didn't know what to do! They also kept sending me 44KHz files, so I finally gave up and just up-converted it (yuck!).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-01-2006, 02:46 PM:

You can hear the compression on many stations as it is right now. What's really driving me away from radio these days is the horrible processing they are putting their content through, all in the name of "we're louder". [Roll Eyes]

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 03-01-2006, 02:51 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
all in the name of "we're louder".

Which translates into were more distorted

Posted by Chris Greenwell (Member # 1660) on 03-01-2006, 03:23 PM:

Yeah that is how 95% of our spots come in is via email (mp3), I havent seen a reel in at least two - three years. But yes the sound quality does suck on some of them, and some of the stations here in salt lake do compress the hell out of there audio, if you watch them on the modulation meters its stuck at one spot. but the station engineer where I work is for sound quality more than being loud, but were still loud and got some dynamics.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 03-01-2006, 03:53 PM:

It seems like the internet is more of a threat to the radio industry than the net is to theatres, yet both face similar trouble with standards & obligations.

I'm an XM subscriber & the friend I live with has Sirius, both are great services. XM had some compression issues after its startup. From what I read on the XM forums, it was due to all the new channels they added at once, but it's recovered and still beats the hell out of FM. A former assistant manager I worked with at Lakeville was part of XM's Minneapolis traffic report launch. She would email reports during drive time on some timed basis.

If I had started school a semester earlier, I would have had the opportunity to work for 89.3 FM, Minnesota NPR's newer music station. They are member-supported music from all genres, uncut with many rare recordings, NPR music programs & commentary from jocks that are more inviting & sponsor-friendly than any of the other shit on air in town. Naturally, they were warmly received in a place like Minneapolis & have seen great promotional success. Aside from that station, the others either play off the fact that they're not Clear Channel to drive ratings, or they're a CC station & they use all those billboards around town to show it.

Quote Hunter S. Thompson:
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 03-04-2006, 04:23 AM:

Clear Channel seems to also enjoy using Windows Media for their spots. I can hear the differences between MP3, Real Media, and Windows Media at low bitrates, and it makes me cringe when I hear a snipe on the radio that, I swear to God, must have been recorded with WMA7 at 16kbps & 16kHz (in laymans terms, artifacts/noise like you wouldn't believe). Then immediately afterward, they jump to regular programming, making the horrible quality of the snipe stand out.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-04-2006, 09:28 AM:

Remember when "Broadcast Quality" was a compliment? Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-04-2006, 01:12 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Remember when "Broadcast Quality" was a compliment? Louis

It is really sad to see all this happen in a day and age when the transmitters are actually alot better than they ever have been. Good solid state transmitters are one reason you are hearing all the compression artifacts better than ever. The downturn of radio is a role model for the demise of film.

Mark

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-04-2006, 09:20 PM:

So, bascally, his answer, "Yes, but MP3 is the industry standard...", translates to, "I don't know and I'm too stupid to know the difference." ??

...Depressing...
[Frown]

And, is all of this why I can hear distortion in the background of certain radio programs that sounds sort of like a computer modem? They are compressing the hell out of the audio to send it from place to place and the CODEC they use is producing the distortion as an artifact?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-04-2006, 09:45 PM:

Eugene's dinosaur-rock station KZEL (owned by Cumulus Media) plays some commercials that sound absolutely awful. The worst is one for a jewelry store that's horribly distorted. Apparently the station has no technical standards whatsoever for what they'll accept from an advertiser (or advertising agency). Another ad has a very low-frequency rumble in it that drives my home theater subwoofer crazy.

What's really annoying is sometimes their computer-stored version of a song that's in heavy rotation is chopped off before it's actually over. Steve Miller's "Fly Like an Eagle" is an example. The last 30 seconds or so is cut off and they keep playing it that way. Their explanaion is "It's the computer". Duh, it's not the computer, it's the person who made the MP3 file or whatever the hell it is they play.

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 03-04-2006, 10:08 PM:

The local radio station where I record my ads for the theater uses Adobe Audition formatted to WAV files. The spots produced locally sound very good, but many of the agency spots that are sent to the station are low bitrate MP3's and you can really tell the difference on the air.

quote: Steve Scott
I'm an XM subscriber & the friend I live with has Sirius, both are great services. XM had some compression issues after its startup.

I'm a Sirius subscriber and have been very disapointed with the sound quality. The only reason I've got Sirius is because relatives gave it to me for christmas. All the music programing sounds like really low bitrate MP3's, and the voice only programing sounds even worse. Do any of you have the same feelings about Sirius? I wonder if I've got a bad receiver (Sporster), or if the sound of this service is really this bad. I find myself turning Sirius off and listening to FM because I can't handle the smeary highs and total lack of bass.
Steve

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 03-04-2006, 10:11 PM:

David, the automated music storage systems have configurable cues for crossfading or cold-cutting. Somebody at that station was probably never trained, isn't authorized or is too busy selling commercial spots to change it. Like a projectionist lazily applying cues.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 03-04-2006, 10:49 PM:

I think radio's problems today have more to do with radio's people being unfamiliar with all the new technology being thrown at them and how to make it all work through all channels (ad agencies, networks, etc.)

I think we'll be into the next decade before they get it all sorted out, but I think radio will ultimately get there.

It doesn't help that the people really in charge of radio always end up being people from the sales force, who generally have no idea how to even program the channels on their car stereo, let alone care about what the product actually sounds like.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-05-2006, 03:37 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Good solid state transmitters are one reason you are hearing all the compression artifacts better than ever.

I don't know... I can't receive WABC worth a darn at night outside of New York. It's like they cut power or something (but I'm sure they're on a clear channel).

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-05-2006, 09:38 AM:

Tim: AM distant reception is going, going, done due to the new "digital" sub carriers. You would hear this as additional noise. So a station on 760 or 780 is sending while noise.

Maybe just as well...can't "sell" outside the immediate area anyway.

Might as well reduce power to 10kw max and get rid of clear channel and Clear Channel.

Thank God for XM! Louis

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-05-2006, 02:35 PM:

I didn't know about this, Louis. That explains a lot. I've noticed many big time stations along my route (WRKO, WBZ, WABC, WINS, et.al.) are long gone just 40 miles down the road at night (although I think RKO does cut power). FWIW, WOR seems to be the best in NY for nighttime signal coverage. WCBS runs a close second.

I had XM in my truck for a long time, but I ended up listening more to local shows so I never renewed it. [Wink]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-07-2006, 02:52 PM:

quote:
What's really annoying is sometimes their computer-stored version of a song that's in heavy rotation is chopped off before it's actually over. The last 30 seconds or so is cut off and they keep playing it that way. Their explanaion is "It's the computer". Duh, it's not the computer, it's the person who made the MP3 file or whatever the hell it is they play.

I use the same automation they have (Cumulus owns BSI Int'l). The system will segue very nicely, but requires that you set the "sectone" pointer for each file. The cheap & dirty way to do it is just to cut the file where you want the next file to play. That might be what KZEL is doing. I was down there late last year. You're right... they do have a strange sound about them.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 03-07-2006, 09:27 PM:

quote: Steve Scott
I'm an XM subscriber & the friend I live with has Sirius, both are great services. XM had some compression issues after its startup. From what I read on the XM forums, it was due to all the new channels they added at once, but it's recovered and still beats the hell out of FM.

On small speakers, both services sound sort of okay, but when you listen on a good system, they both really suck. Take the Left and Right signal and combine them out of phase and you'll hear all the digital artifacts. What you hear sounds uncannily like the sound effects used in movies when they show a satellite orbiting in space. All of the out of phase information (the stereo part of the signal and the stereo echo return) is destroyed.
----
As far as MP3s for radio spots are concerned, what you have to remember is that radio used to use tape cartridges for spots (and many stations used them for music as well). Tape cartridges were notorious for wow, flutter and phase problems. MP3s really are better than tape cartridges were. But overall, I agree: most radio audio is really bad these days.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-08-2006, 01:58 AM:

Judging by what you guys are saying, I feel a little bit stupid for not knowing better.

But, not knowing what I know now, wouldn't it be right for me to assume that people at a radio station should be able to deal with an '.aiff' file?

After all, they have million dollar equipment. All I have is a 6 year old computer with a crummy 400 MHz processor in it.

If that's the way they are going to run their business, why don't they just take an iPod and plug it into the mixing console? It'd be a whole hell of a lot better quality!

Wait a minute! Why bother with all of the crap? Why don't I just get an iPod for myself!? It's not top quality sound but it's a lot better than I hear on the radio!

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-08-2006, 09:11 AM:

The sound quality on XM sucks. To be fair, I am not getting XM directly, I am getting it though DirecTv, but it is noticably more compressed than the MusicChoice service that it replaced.

On the "Frank's Place" channel, the Saturday & Sunday afternoon show is actually a simalcast of Johnathan Scwartz's long running shows on WNYC-FM in New York City. I can flip back and forth between my 20 year old FM tuner and XM (on DirecTv), and the FM blows away the sound quality of XM.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-08-2006, 11:07 AM:

My XM audio quality experience mirrors those listed above......until I purchased a Polk audio receiver that has much improved d/a converter on it. No comparison.

Apparently "there is a difference." I am told that the car units use technology suitable for headphone outputs while the other unit is "completely different" in the d/a and output stages. Louis

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 03-08-2006, 02:52 PM:

That doesn't surprise me Louis. I got signed up with XM while working for Best Buy, while Delphi was doing an employee purchase deal (I think it was around $100 for the original Sky-Fi receiver & either a home or car kit), and anytime I ever use the term "good sound quality", I've had to put that on a huge sliding scale for consumers. I sold more receivers when I pitched it as the equivilent of Cable TV for your radio.
Most of them were FM modulating the signal in their cars or using shit receivers at home & never really tried to get a lot of sound out of the things.

But it's soooooo easy to sell digital radio because of that magic qualifing 'D-word'

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-08-2006, 03:48 PM:

Tim, My understanding from the former chief engineer at WSTW FM / WDEL AM, Scotty Moyer, aka W3URR, is that AM stations cut power (or shutdown completely) from sunset to sunrise as per FCC licensing and regs.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-08-2006, 05:33 PM:

Mark, he is right. But not the 50,000 watt stations that Tim mentioned. They never cut. The "digital" B.S. is new. The power cut day/night has been stable since at least before 1939. Louis

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-09-2006, 06:42 PM:

A related saying: Audio people love standards, that's why they have so many of them.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-09-2006, 11:16 PM:

Roger that, Louis. Thanks. [Smile]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-11-2006, 10:52 AM:

Seems obvious that cramming multiple signals into one stream means compromise somewhere.

The real proof is getting used to the artifacts on Dishnetwork, then switching to the same feed on a C-band system.

On audio: For awhile, a couple of our local FM stations were using a digital STL that made the whole station sound like a low-bitrate MP3. They eventually went to something else, but it surprised me that they used them as long as they did.

Standards? Nope. The FCC got out of that biz when they discovered they could be sued for messing with free enterprise. Anyone remember Motorola/Kahn/Harris/Delco????