Info wanted on Texar RCF-1 modification on Orban Optimod 8100
Robert Zachrisson
the Texar RCF-1 unit.
Anyone have any info on the Texar mod?
Any info would be helpful.
Robert
John Higdon
rob...@radiobastad.se (Robert Zachrisson) wrote:
The most helpful advice I can probably give you is to attempt to return
the unit to stock Orban and throw the Texar away.
--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
Scott Dorsey
John Higdon <absolutel...@verislimesucks.com> wrote:
>In article <c5mcfp$49r$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>,
> rob...@radiobastad.se (Robert Zachrisson) wrote:
>
>> I have recently come over a used Optimod 8100 whitch is modified with
>> the Texar RCF-1 unit.
>> Anyone have any info on the Texar mod?
>> Any info would be helpful.
>
>The most helpful advice I can probably give you is to attempt to return
>the unit to stock Orban and throw the Texar away.
The RCF-1 card is needed if you're using the Texar Prism for
pre-processing before the Orban. I know Mooretronix at 800-300-0733
often carries used Prisms and can probably get you data if you really
need it, and I know that Gentner took over all the Texar stuff and
may have docs.
But I agree with Jon. Unless you're into massively overprocessing your
audio, get rid of the RCF-1.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Bob Haberkost
know how to use them.
In the times when I used Texars, in just this sort of configuration, it was
little trouble to have the LOUDEST signal on the dial (with no overmod) yet
sound so much like the source that it was virtually impossible to
differentiate between the source and the air product. Before the Texar was
the big rage it was in the mid 80's, it was virtually a secret weapon in the
processor wars that were running in Pittsburgh....although it's worth noting
that most of my competition had them, too...they just couldn't make them
sound as good.
Computers are pretty worthless tools when one doesn't know how to use them,
either.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"John Higdon" <absolutel...@verislimesucks.com> wrote in message
news:c5nkfs$95d$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
John Higdon
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> But I agree with Jon. Unless you're into massively overprocessing your
> audio, get rid of the RCF-1.
It is easy to make a station loud. The trick is to keep people from
tuning out from fatigue. The Texar is the most easily-recognizable bad
processing in the industry (second only to the infamous
Audimax/Volumax). I don't know anyone who cannot spot one instantly on
the air after ten seconds of listening.
I don't call that "transparency".
John Higdon
"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote:
> You people who always slag the Texars....it's pretty obvious that you don't
> know how to use them.
Oh, please.
> In the times when I used Texars, in just this sort of configuration, it was
> little trouble to have the LOUDEST signal on the dial (with no overmod) yet
> sound so much like the source that it was virtually impossible to
> differentiate between the source and the air product.
Yes, I've heard that one before. Unfortunately, the sound of the
stations don't ever seem to back them up.
> Before the Texar was
> the big rage it was in the mid 80's, it was virtually a secret weapon in the
> processor wars that were running in Pittsburgh....although it's worth noting
> that most of my competition had them, too...they just couldn't make them
> sound as good.
Is that why stations sounded so bad on the east coast back then? Thanks
for clearing that up.
> Computers are pretty worthless tools when one doesn't know how to use them,
> either.
That doesn't mean Texars aren't crap.
Bob Haberkost
While you're right...the east coast and Pittsburgh, in particular, sounded
like crap...still does, for that matter. But one station did stand out for
quality and loudness...mine. You don't have to believe me, and I have
nothing that requires that you do. But...if you want to believe that your
inadequate skills have no relationship to your inability to get an audio
processing chain to sound decent and loud with as little discernable
tradeoff, it's no skin off my nose.
Just because you can't make them sound good, doesn't make them crap, either.
Just admit that you don't know how to make them sound good, since others
have no trouble showing that it's not impossible to do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"John Higdon" <absolutel...@verislimesucks.com> wrote in message
news:c5pnbp$3bv$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
Scott Dorsey
>In article <c5oruo$3k1$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> But I agree with Jon. Unless you're into massively overprocessing your
>> audio, get rid of the RCF-1.
>
>It is easy to make a station loud. The trick is to keep people from
>tuning out from fatigue. The Texar is the most easily-recognizable bad
>processing in the industry (second only to the infamous
>Audimax/Volumax). I don't know anyone who cannot spot one instantly on
>the air after ten seconds of listening.
>
>I don't call that "transparency".
There are plenty of PDs who don't want transparency, and in fact who
want processing that specifically puts their fingerprint on the sound
and makes it sound different than everything else on the dial. Not
necessarily better, just different.
I don't get it, but then I think the whole loudness war thing is silly
anyway.
John Higdon
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> There are plenty of PDs who don't want transparency, and in fact who
> want processing that specifically puts their fingerprint on the sound
> and makes it sound different than everything else on the dial. Not
> necessarily better, just different.
Indeed. I was simply countering the statement by someone that "Texars
are loud and yet sound like the original source". The fact is that they
definitely do not. Whether or not a PD would find that coloration
pleasing or desirable is an issue I'll let others debate.
> I don't get it, but then I think the whole loudness war thing is silly
> anyway.
On that, we can agree fully.
John Higdon
"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote:
> It's good to see that the unfettered ego is still alive in audio processing.
> While you're right...the east coast and Pittsburgh, in particular, sounded
> like crap...still does, for that matter. But one station did stand out for
> quality and loudness...mine.
Ego?
> You don't have to believe me, and I have
> nothing that requires that you do. But...if you want to believe that your
> inadequate skills have no relationship to your inability to get an audio
> processing chain to sound decent and loud with as little discernable
> tradeoff, it's no skin off my nose.
And you don't know me, you don't know what stations I maintain, you
don't know my history and involvement with audio processing, FCC
rulemaking, or technical innovation. You have never heard or seen my
work, unless you have visited the San Francisco area. And even then, you
don't know which stations represent my efforts. Yet, you have no problem
assessing my skill level when it comes to broadcast audio. You presume
much.
> Just because you can't make them sound good, doesn't make them crap, either.
> Just admit that you don't know how to make them sound good, since others
> have no trouble showing that it's not impossible to do.
Unlike you, I'm not going to brag about how my stations sound. I don't
have an inferiority complex that requires self-promotion, nor do I need
to resort to personal attacks to make my points.
I've given you my assessment of Texars. Take it or leave it. Apparently,
at least more than a few others agree since you won't find very many on
the air at major-market stations.
I'll leave it at that.
Eric C. Weaver
> There are plenty of PDs who don't want transparency, and in fact who
> want processing that specifically puts their fingerprint on the sound
> and makes it sound different than everything else on the dial. Not
> necessarily better, just different.
Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring
production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --FZ
Hi, Scott!
Mark Howell
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of PDs who don't want transparency, and in fact who
>> want processing that specifically puts their fingerprint on the sound
>> and makes it sound different than everything else on the dial. Not
>> necessarily better, just different.
>
>Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
There are a few oldies stations that do, because they're trying to
recreate the sound of the big Top 40 stations of the 60's and 70's.
Mark Howell
John Higdon
"Eric C. Weaver" <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
> Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.
Philip de Cadenet
>> Just because you can't make them sound good, doesn't make them crap,
With reference to the actual subject of this thread someone can correct
me hear but I do believe there were mod's available also for the Texar's
themselves.
I have a pair of Prisms here and also one of their AM Prisms which I've
yet to hook-up to a transmitter.
Aside from the above and possibly a subject for another thread (as this
one's getting somewhat frosty) I would be very interested in what
processing chains people are using on both AM an FM stations.
I'm sure most of you have seen the processor chain photo's on Gary
Blau's site:
http://www.w3am.com/audiocha.html
On my very first visits to your country in the early 80's I accidentally
tuned into KHJ/KRTH when they were using the latter call letters on AM
930 and their audio on AM literally 'blew me away'.
From what I've heard their audio quality was not typical.
--
Philip de Cadenet
Bob Haberkost
basically, crap, due to the fact that you couldn't make them do what you wanted.
Then you blamed the device, figuring that it couldn't be you.
All I was saying is that it wasn't the device. So it must be you. And (to the
other correspondent, Mr de Cadernet) yes, RKO stations always did sound great. Much
of what I know I learned from RKO people.
But I have no need for self-promotion. I don't so this anymore, because there's no
money in it, nor creativity, nor sole. And one of the reasons why is because, as was
noted elsewhere, PDs think that their "signature sound" is actually what the audience
wants. I know better. And I quit.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"John Higdon" <absolutel...@verislimesucks.com> wrote in message
news:c5rkl6$n70$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
> In article <c5rhcd$e6g$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>,
> "Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote:
>
> > It's good to see that the unfettered ego is still alive in audio processing.
> > While you're right...the east coast and Pittsburgh, in particular, sounded
> > like crap...still does, for that matter. But one station did stand out for
> > quality and loudness...mine.
>
> Ego?
>
> And you don't know me, you don't know what stations I maintain, you
> don't know my history and involvement with audio processing, FCC
> rulemaking, or technical innovation. You have never heard or seen my
> work, unless you have visited the San Francisco area. And even then, you
> don't know which stations represent my efforts. Yet, you have no problem
> assessing my skill level when it comes to broadcast audio. You presume
> much.
>
Scott Dorsey
>In article <c5rkl4$n5p$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>,
> "Eric C. Weaver" <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
>
>> Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
>
>Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
>ubiquitous at major market stations.
Hey, we got a station here where the airchain produces so much audible
distortion on voices that the announcer mike goes through seperate and
less aggressive processing (including some bizarre EQ but no reverb)
and is injected into the airchain after most of the conventional processing
chain. THAT is sick.
Eric C. Weaver
> In article <c5rkl4$n5p$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>,
> "Eric C. Weaver" <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
>
>
> Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
> ubiquitous at major market stations.
>
Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...
Robert Zachrisson
> > I don't get it, but then I think the whole loudness war thing is silly
> > anyway.
>
> On that, we can agree fully.
Thanks all for the comments.
I just wanted info on the Texar not to start a war :o)
In my opinion, the urge to process sound makes sense.
Increasing the average audio level (but keeping the maximum constant)
will increase signal to noise ratio, and the perceived loudness,
whether it's for recording, AM or FM transmitting.
As allways there are 2 sides to a coin, in this case the drawback is
listening fattigue due to decreased dynamics and increased distorsion.
In short we make sure we use our recources fully.
Some don't settle for less then maximum all the time, while others
realise that there is a backside to it, and makes a more balanced
setting.
But as the technology matures, most of the gains are allready made and
further advances takes huge efforts and gives only small advances.
At this moment, all cind of metaphysical terms and decription starts
to florish, and I stop listening and turns my attension elsewhere.
Philip de Cadenet
>>>Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
>>
>>
>> Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
>> ubiquitous at major market stations.
>>
>
>Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
>reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...
Didn't WABC once use an EMT plate reverb?
--
Philip de Cadenet
Transmitters 'R' Us
http://www.transmittersrus.com
John Higdon
"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote:
> I made no presumptions on your skills...you did. You stated that Texars
> were,
> basically, crap, due to the fact that you couldn't make them do what you
> wanted.
> Then you blamed the device, figuring that it couldn't be you.
I've never used, or tried to use a Texar. My conclusions about Texars
are based on the results obtained by others in this market.
> All I was saying is that it wasn't the device. So it must be you.
I had nothing to do with it. But I'm not willing to believe that a dozen
engineers in the SFBA are incompetent. You can make that assertion if
you like, but I'd like to see you back it up. More than a dozen stations
tried Texar; every one yanked them off.
> But I have no need for self-promotion. I don't so this anymore, because
> there's no
> money in it, nor creativity, nor sole.
Only if you are mediocre and uninspired. I'm making a fine living in
broadcast engineering, and I'm enjoying the challenges. Don't blame an
entire industry for your own inadequacies.
> And one of the reasons why is
> because, as was
> noted elsewhere, PDs think that their "signature sound" is actually what the
> audience
> wants. I know better. And I quit.
I know that as well. However, I have managed to influence the stations
under my charge to adopt reasonable approaches to their audio processing.
I guess it is all a matter of individual ability and fortitude. Sorry
you couldn't cut it.
Sid Schweiger
Sheesh. Talk about mixing metaphors.
None of the WABC jocks screamed, nor were they known as "boss jocks." I don't
know what station you thought you were listening to, but it wasn't WABC.
John Higdon
rob...@radiobastad.se (Robert Zachrisson) wrote:
> Increasing the average audio level (but keeping the maximum constant)
> will increase signal to noise ratio, and the perceived loudness,
> whether it's for recording, AM or FM transmitting.
For competitive reasons, broadcast audio processing has become an art.
If I had my druthers, processing would be absolutely minimal. That
aside, I also concede that there are techniques to keep the signal away
from the noise floor that do not seriously mangle the music in the
process and can actually give the appearance of dynamic range.
In most major markets, there is at least one station that has figured
this out. What you can hear are "soft" passages that are actually louder
on the dial than other stations' din of squash, and then when the music
swells, it seems to get even louder! The effect is an illusion of
dynamics while maintaining an ear-grabbing, highly competitive sound.
> As allways there are 2 sides to a coin, in this case the drawback is
> listening fattigue due to decreased dynamics and increased distorsion.
Indeed. Fortunately, DSP has managed to neatly package sophisticated
techniques that could only be obtained in the past with considerable
experimentation using combinations of devices. The Texar/Optimod combo
was an attempt to pre-package such a technique, but unfortunately the
Texar was ill-conceived. Its audio bands were in the wrong places. Its
time constants produced more artifacts and fatigue than competitive
sound. And, of course, it still relied on the Optimod for modulation
control.
> In short we make sure we use our recources fully.
> Some don't settle for less then maximum all the time, while others
> realise that there is a backside to it, and makes a more balanced
> setting.
As Arlo Gutherie might say, "You can have anything you want..." in a
suitable digital processor. In that situation, everything is on the
table, and can be handled with a minimum of audible distortion. (But
always keep in mind that audio processing, by definition, IS
distortion.) With a Texar, you get hardwired, ill-conceived constants.
> But as the technology matures, most of the gains are allready made and
> further advances takes huge efforts and gives only small advances.
>
> At this moment, all cind of metaphysical terms and decription starts
> to florish, and I stop listening and turns my attension elsewhere.
First and foremost, you need to have an ear for work. It is, after all,
all about listening.
Bill Thompson
This is an interesting thread, as another former broadcast engineer I
thought I'd toss in two cents worth...
John Higdon wrote:
> I had nothing to do with it. But I'm not willing to believe that a dozen
> engineers in the SFBA are incompetent. You can make that assertion if
> you like, but I'd like to see you back it up. More than a dozen stations
> tried Texar; every one yanked them off.
In the Philadelphia area we had a number of stations adopt the Texar,
and before that the Optimod, and before that the DAP, and before that,
well, that was before my time<G>!
In every case there were stations who could make any of the devices
sound like their trademark fingerprint, usually excessively loud, and
there were stations that made them sound pretty darned decent.
When the Optimod came out the station I worked for was told by our
consultants (UGH) to switch from the DAP to the Optimod, and the owner
agreed. The other engineers and I were, needless to say, a little
miffed, and we didn't spend a lot of time learning how to use the
Optimod, and it sounded, predictably, pretty darned bad.
Then the college station where I worked got an Optimod, and for whatever
reason, I spent about a month playing with it before I put it on the
air. This was before the internet, but I called Orban, and Mr. Orban
himself spent quite a bit of time walking me through his design
objectives, and a whole lotta other info. (Thanks Mr. Orban!!!).
At that point I invited my fellow engineers at the commercial station to
have some fun playing, and we ended up with a pretty decent compromise
between the owner and PD request to be the loudest station on earth and
our own desire to sound good.
Then along came the composite clipper, and this time we spent some time
learning about it before we used it, and while it was audible, we did
manage to avoid over-using it.
At which point I left commercial radio...
Still, I have no doubt that one could use the Texar, or any other
processor and get really bad results, or really good results. I've
heard, but have no direct knowledge, that part of the problem was the
people selling the Texar... their focus was on really really loud, to
the point where good wasn't an objective.
> Only if you are mediocre and uninspired. I'm making a fine living in
> broadcast engineering, and I'm enjoying the challenges. Don't blame an
> entire industry for your own inadequacies.
I think that is great... I enjoyed working as a broadcast engineer, so
much so that I acted as technical advisior at the college station until
this past Decemeber. But after a point the local market really closed
down... most stations cut their engineering budgets, and as they got
bought one poor engineer ended up taking care of multiple stations...
until there simply wasn't much of a market.
> I know that as well. However, I have managed to influence the stations
> under my charge to adopt reasonable approaches to their audio processing.
The ultimate challenge!! Congrats on having the chops, both technically
and politcally, to maintain some semblence of influence. It isn't easy!
My other recollection from my commercial radio days was rebuilding the
production suite. I was just out of school, and really wanted to make an
impression... I gave it everything I had, and through some great
coaching and a little luck the new production room sounded so good that
it made the air chain sound terrible. The owner and PD were furious, to
the point where they were convinced that something I had done in the
production room had broken the air chain<G>!
If that wasn't bad enough, I then tackled the air chain, and, as I'm
sure you've already guessed, everything I fixed made the rest of the
stuff sound worse. Sadly, I started at the sources, tape decks and cart
machines, so the difference was really obvious when the air staff would
switch the monitors from air to program.
I was fired... but the other engineers explained the situation to the
owners (I think because they didn't want to spend their evenings,
nights, and weekends finishing the task at hand), and I was re-hired,
and eventually finished the job, to everyones satisfaction.
I learned a lot of lessons from that adventure... and they still serve
me today!!!!!
Ah the life<G>...
Bill
Scott Dorsey
>I made no presumptions on your skills...you did. You stated that Texars were,
>basically, crap, due to the fact that you couldn't make them do what you wanted.
More likely, it was a mismatch between what he wanted to make them do,
and what they do.
Sid Schweiger
Sheesh. Talk about mixing metaphors.
John Higdon
Bill Thompson <bi...@audioenterprise.com> wrote:
> When the Optimod came out the station I worked for was told by our
> consultants (UGH) to switch from the DAP to the Optimod, and the owner
> agreed. The other engineers and I were, needless to say, a little
> miffed, and we didn't spend a lot of time learning how to use the
> Optimod, and it sounded, predictably, pretty darned bad.
I assume you are talking about the Optimod 8000. There is an interesting
history behind the 8000, which as crude as it is now by today's
standards, was revolutionary in its day. When Bob brought his Moduline
box prototype of the 8000 by my station and we put it on the air in 1974
(the first time an Optimod 8000 ever saw the light of day on the air, by
the way), I was blown away. I had never before seen (or heard) any
processor that had such tight modulation control on ALL program
material, while sounding relatively open with remarkably
natural-sounding high frequencies.
> Then the college station where I worked got an Optimod, and for whatever
> reason, I spent about a month playing with it before I put it on the
> air. This was before the internet, but I called Orban, and Mr. Orban
> himself spent quite a bit of time walking me through his design
> objectives, and a whole lotta other info. (Thanks Mr. Orban!!!).
The 8000 was designed solely and exclusively by Bob himself. It was not
a collaboration with anyone. It was created as the result of badgering
by some of his friends who happened to be broadcast engineers who
insisted that he apply his considerable design skills to solve the
problem of modulation control on FM. Bob personally walked you through
it because, frankly, he was the only one who knew how it worked at what
became Orban Associates.
> Then along came the composite clipper, and this time we spent some time
> learning about it before we used it, and while it was audible, we did
> manage to avoid over-using it.
I experimented with composite clipping just before the 8000 came to
pass. I (and others) insisted to Bob that there had to be a better way.
But that was well before it was perverted into a processing technique. I
simply used it to shave off the overshoots caused by passing square
waves into low-pass filters for modulation control, not to smash the
audio into it to make it louder.
Bill Blomgren
>I think that is great... I enjoyed working as a broadcast engineer, so
>much so that I acted as technical advisior at the college station until
>this past Decemeber. But after a point the local market really closed
>down... most stations cut their engineering budgets, and as they got
>bought one poor engineer ended up taking care of multiple stations...
>until there simply wasn't much of a market.
Back in the dark ages when I was CE at WMNF in Tampa, we had a minimalist
approach to processing brought on by a tiny budget.. We had a gates peak
limiter at the transmitter, and nothing else..
The station was the cleanest on the air in Tampa.. Mono, but clean.
The problem that made it sound junky at times: Phone lines. I fought with GTE
(genital telephone and electronics, so called because when you asked for a
"class A line", you had to hunt for hours before you could find someone that
knew what it meant. One guy in Tampa, who was usually not at his desk..)
The line to the transmitter in Riverview went past tons of tv transmitters,
and the end result was an ugly mishmash of horizontal sync audible in the
audio when the weather was right.. A little moisture, and all heck would break
lose.. There were times I threatened to drive it with a 100 watt amplifier to
get their attention. Didn't happen, however...
They finally got a new studio location. GTE hit them for $10k to change the
line from the original old house they were renting to the new location. Then
they got a microwave, and got the sound cured once and for all. As far as I
know, they are still paying $200 a month for the land line to the transmitter,
since it had a 20 year contract.
sheesh.
Since then they've gotten an old Optimod, and are treating it gently,
resulting in decent sound on the air.. at least it was last time I was down
there.
Rich Wood
wrote:
If memory serves, the "boss jocks" were an RKO General creation.
Rich
Sid Schweiger
Yes...but even so, very few of them screamed, at least on the stations that
Bill Drake consulted personally. He understood listener fatigue and tune-out
quite well. It was usually the imitators who thought every jock had to scream.
Michael Hyman
> John Higdon wrote:
>> In article <c5rkl4$n5p$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>,
>> "Eric C. Weaver" <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
>>
>>
>> Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
>> ubiquitous at major market stations.
>>
>
> Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
> reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...
Can someone explain terms like the "air stream" or recommend a good web
site for the lay-folk like myself. I am interested in following
discussions like this, but I have no technical background in audio.
Thanks...Michael
Robert Orban
says...
>
>
>Eric,
>
>>>>Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
>>>
>>>
>>> Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
>>> ubiquitous at major market stations.
>>>
>>
>>Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
>>reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...
>
>Didn't WABC once use an EMT plate reverb?
So I was told (I never actually visited the TX, where the unit allegedly
resided). Moreover, having heard a LOT of WABC during its glory days, I can
attest that the reverb was used quite sparingly, particularly by comparison
to some other stations of the time.
unitron
<snip>
>
> My other recollection from my commercial radio days was rebuilding the
> production suite. I was just out of school, and really wanted to make an
> impression... I gave it everything I had, and through some great
> coaching and a little luck the new production room sounded so good that
> it made the air chain sound terrible. The owner and PD were furious, to
> the point where they were convinced that something I had done in the
> production room had broken the air chain<G>!
Idiots who know nothing about sound or electronics get to run radio
stations, no news there. WKRP wasn't real life exagerated for comic
effect, it was real life dialed back to make it believable for the
viewing audience who had no idea about what life in real small to
medium market stations was like.
>
> If that wasn't bad enough, I then tackled the air chain, and, as I'm
> sure you've already guessed, everything I fixed made the rest of the
> stuff sound worse. Sadly, I started at the sources, tape decks and cart
> machines, so the difference was really obvious when the air staff would
> switch the monitors from air to program.
Wouldn't switching between program and air just show the difference
made by the post-board mix processing chain? Wouldn't proper head
cleaning and alignment make both sound better?
Stu Bulman
> John Higdon wrote:
> > In article <c5rkl4$n5p$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>,
> > "Eric C. Weaver" <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?
> >
> >
> > Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
> > ubiquitous at major market stations.
> >
>
> Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
> reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...
Think back a minute:
Herb Oscar Anderson (HOA) did not scream
Ron Lundy did not scream
Chuck Leonard did not scream
Dan Ingram did not scream
Cousin Brucie--does voice cracking constitute screaming???
Howerver:
SuperMax bellowed
Dick Biondi was frantic
Joey Reynolds was nuts
Gary Stevens pushed
Wolfman Jack howled
I could go on and on...I miss 'em all
Bill Thompson
> Bill Thompson <bi...@audioenterprise.com> wrote in message news:<c61f0l$nbm$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>...
> Idiots who know nothing about sound or electronics get to run radio
> stations, no news there.
But it wasn't always that way!!!
> WKRP wasn't real life exagerated for comic
> effect, it was real life dialed back to make it believable for the
> viewing audience who had no idea about what life in real small to
> medium market stations was like.
I would have to agree with that...
>
>>If that wasn't bad enough, I then tackled the air chain, and, as I'm
>>sure you've already guessed, everything I fixed made the rest of the
>>stuff sound worse. Sadly, I started at the sources, tape decks and cart
>>machines, so the difference was really obvious when the air staff would
>>switch the monitors from air to program.
>
> Wouldn't switching between program and air just show the difference
> made by the post-board mix processing chain?
Absolutely! But we had bigger fish to fillet... the board, or more
accurately the way the board was configured and used, was a big part of
the problem. This was my introduction to the importance of proper gain
staging!
> Wouldn't proper head cleaning and alignment make both sound better?
That's what I thought... but when all the tape decks and cart machines
were set up they really made the rest of the system choke. And of course
once you start you're pretty much stuck, so we then tackled the console,
and once that was set up the difference between the output of the
console and the output from the transmitter was so dramatic...
unitron
So the stuff between the board and the xmtr was making the board
signal worse, but the board signal sucked so bad that the additional
suckage wasn't particularly noticable until you started improving the
source and then any improvements in the board signal just made the
deliterious effects of the processing chain that much more noticable?
Bill Thompson
> So the stuff between the board and the xmtr was making the board
> signal worse, but the board signal sucked so bad that the additional
> suckage wasn't particularly noticable until you started improving the
> source and then any improvements in the board signal just made the
> deliterious effects of the processing chain that much more noticable?
You said it better than I could<G>!