Behringer X32 - Audio Media

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FEATURE 30 November 2012 | audiomedia.com Level Playing Field Modern Broadcast Processing Iain Betson investigates the role processing plays near the end of the modern broadcast chain, and samples a few of the options available available to to your your station. Processing. If there is anything more likely to spark fierce debate amongst the chattering radio classes then it is the subject of on-air processing. Whilst researching this piece, a web trawl threw up a forum thread on the subject going back to 2002, and running for over five years! Weighing into that forum ring were posts from the CEOs of the two main US processor manufacturers, debating the pros of their products and the cons of the others, asserting the radio markets in which they were dominant and highlighting that the other wasn’t. It got that heated. To Process Or Not? Today I don’t think that there is any argument against the fact that a radio station, broadcasting on whichever transmission platform, needs to control the level, dynamic range, and EQ of its output. Self-op presenters are not known to be audio engineers. So processing is a given. The questions are: by how much and with which device? Whilst there is a strong argument that additional compression or equalisation of a station output is not necessary, especially with jazz or classical music formats, this does not take into account the factors outside the radio station’s control; factors such as the station’s geographical terrain, less-than-ideal receivers and listening conditions, and that frankly the basic human psyche tends to be “if it’s loud it must be good!” Processor manufacturers rightly say that a processed signal transmitted via an analogue medium allows the signal-to-noise ratio to be raised, thus increasing the likelihood of reception on the edges of the station transmission footprint and, with the advent of ‘hybrid’ reception (devices that can receive terrestrial analogue and digital signals as well as via the web), processing will “soften the perceived quality difference between the modes”. The other term they like to use is ‘signature sound’. That is, the claim that the way you set up your processor will be so different from your rivals that a listener will instantly be able to tell that it’s Adele being played on YOUR station and not anyone else’s. This claim can often be reduced to “makes it loud” (so it must be good!). We have RDS, DLS, and websites to tell us which station we’re on, though I concede that in a competitive market where every trick in the book is needed to gain and retain listeners, this position may have some validity; in less competitive markets, squashing the signal to 4dB of dynamic range may be doing your station a disservice. Treat Me Like I’m Four If you’re new to the dark-side of radio station on-air processing or perhaps mystified as to why there is all this hullabaloo over a box that essentially just protects your transmitter from distorting when in the hands or an overenthusiastic DJ, then allow me to explain. For the experienced, I’m sorry if this next bit treats you like you are four years old, but a little recap never hurt anyone. The market for on-air processing originated in the fiercely competitive US radio industry. Until the 1960s, all you needed in the way of transmitter protection equipment was a simple wide-band limiter to make sure you didn’t distort the signal through the broadcast chain, or cause the transmitter to over-deviate and thus spread your signal into adjacent broadcast channels. Indeed some stations, even those in the US, had a technical operator between the presenter and the transmitter to make sure this didn’t happen, acting as a human limiter by keeping one hand on the main fader ready to pull down the level if things got too loud. Later, broadcast engineers with an eye not just on the technical side but also on the station programming soon realised that the limiters could be set up to compress too, thus reducing the dynamic range of the signal, improving the difference between the wanted signal and the background hiss, and generally adding some excitement to the music the station played. Unfortunately, a simple wide-band compressor/limiter when worked too hard suffers from a one-size-fits-all approach to levels. For example, a loud kick-drum will cause the limiter to limit this low frequency sound with the same gusto as, perhaps, the higher – but not as loud – vocal frequencies of the singer. The result is a kind of lopsided audio signal that, frankly, is fatiguing to listen to. So they hit upon the idea of a multi-stage unit. They added an auto-volume control stage (an AGC), then split the signal into narrow frequency bands, one for the lows, one or two for the mid range sounds, and another for the high stuff. This meant that a sound in one frequency band that needed some attention did not affect the sound in the other bands that did not. Four to six of these band-limited compressors in a processor unit became the norm. Once the signal had been split and each band had been compressed, it was then mixed back into a single signal again before passing through a final protection limiter. This, in essence, is an on-air processor. From analogue-based solutions, things have moved to digital processors to address the requirements of broadcasting on both analogue and digital platforms. Constant refinement over the years now means these devices have phase equalisers to time the band-split signals so they reach the mix stage at the same time, equalisation to tweak the tonal content of each band, speech and music detectors to cope with different material, and look-ahead limiting that has the ability to see into the future and adjust itself before the high peaks of the signal even reach it. Indeed, as Dan McQuillin of Broadcast Bionics says, the job of the processor has now gone full circle; in addition to its original purpose of making the output as loud as possible, a modern on-air processor now aims to remove many of the annoying artefacts found in heavily compressed, or bit reduced, source material that will result in listening fatigue. You see, processors don’t just have a single button on the front labelled: ‘Make my station sound good’. If only it were that simple. >
The control of each compression band, its EQ, limiting, and a host of other settings means that the configuration combinations, to get that signature sound, are near infinitesimal. This has resulted in processor wars, where each manufacturer – and the stations using their products – competes to have the loudest, smoothest, punchiest on-air signal. If you have half-a-mind to search, numerous pages and forums exist on the web detailing optimal set-ups for this processor or that one. There is even an aptly named Processing Freak Day, held annually in The Netherlands, where those with more than a passing interest in the subject meet at a convention centre and critically listen to these devices to discuss the merits of what product X does to the signal over that of its rival. At the end of the day, I assume the organisers open the doors and the attendees then have a much-needed chance to get out more! #31558 - Rode NTG8 Ad-AM_Layout 28/08/2012 10:38 Page 1 The Audessence PodBlaster. “...these devices have phase equalisers to time the bandsplit signals so they reach the mix stage at the same time, equalisation to tweak the tonal content of each band, speech and music detectors to cope with different material.” Iain Betson A SHOTGUN MIC THAT REALLY GOES THE DISTANCE The latest in RØDE’s price-busting, award-winning range of shotgun mics, the NTG-8 combines an open, natural sound and low self-noise with increased directionality across a wide frequency response - perfect for film, TV, sports, OB and any professional distance miking application. Exclusively distributed in the UK & Ireland by Source T: 020 8962 5080 W: sourcedistribution.co.uk/rode The BW Broadcast DSPX FM and DSPX Mini. Pick Your Poison For the purposes of this article, I am going to stick to pure processing and sidestep related topics such as processing for podcasts, streaming data compression, studio-to-transmitter links, etc. These areas have become blurred in the last few years and to do it justice would require more space than we have here. Processing equipment ranges in price and sophistication from the low to the stratospheric. But having all the bells and whistles, with a price tag to match, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the right box to hang on the end of your station output. Sometimes, less is more. I mentioned above that a wideband compressor can be inferior to a multi-band version in what it does to the signal. Audessence produces a nice range of processors all based on a single wideband compressor. Owner Martin Spencer said: “If your station doesn’t need to have its signal compressed to death in order to retain NTG-8 Super-directional RF-biased Long Shotgun Mic NTG-1 Condenser shotgun microphone NTG-2 Multi-powered condenser shotgun microphone NTG-3 Precision condenser shotgun microphone NTG-8 Long condenser shotgun microphone facebook.com/sourcedistribution twitter.com/sourcedist audiomedia.com | November 2012 31 >
Page 1 and 2: AUDIOMEDIA AUDIO AUDIOMEDIA MEDIA P
Page 3 and 4: AUDIOMEDIA AUDIO AUDIOMEDIA MEDIA N
Page 5 and 6: Modular Mounting System Totally fle
Page 7 and 8: On Twitter this month… “Danny B
Page 9 and 10: AKG Adds Antennae AKG has unveiled
Page 11 and 12: Solid State Logic has released the
Page 13 and 14: TM Advanced Transmission Line twotw
Page 15 and 16: Twickenham Studios Ltd (TSL) has an
Page 17 and 18: PERFORMANCE 16ch mULTITRACK recorde
Page 19 and 20: • 194 input + 196 output channels
Page 21 and 22: presentation rooms and news booths.
Page 23 and 24: RecoR ding Studio champ d’Action
Page 25 and 26: Your sound. Our Forte. Our best 2 x
Page 27 and 28: over rough terrain - it’s very sl
Page 32 and 33: listeners, why spend money on an ex
Page 34 and 35: FEATuRE 34 November 2012 | audiomed
Page 36 and 37: FEATurE 36 November 2012 | audiomed
Page 38 and 39: FEATURE 38 October 2012 | audiomedi
Page 40 and 41: Lexicon algorithms were; they were
Page 42 and 43: [ ] TECH ] FOCUS 42 November2012 |
Page 44 and 45: [ In-Ear Monitoring ] [ Headphones
Page 46 and 47: [ Headphones ] [6] KRK Headphones o
Page 48 and 49: THE REVIEWER ALISTAIR McGHEE began
Page 50 and 51: THE REVIEWER Russ Long is a Nashvil
Page 52 and 53: THE REVIEWER Alan Branch is a freel
Page 54 and 55: THE REVIEWER ALISTAIR McGHEE began
Page 56 and 57: NewBay Media is the entertainment t
Page 58 and 59: THE REVIEWER Jerry Ibbotson has wor
Page 60: THE REVIEWER ALISTAIR McGHEE began
Page 63 and 64: TECHNOLOGY NEWS The Linear Tape-Ope
Page 66: FEATURE CLASSICCUT “Blow Out has
Page 69 and 70: THE INTERNATIONAL BUYER’S GUIDE A
Page 71 and 72: contents 4 Portable Recorders . . .
Page 73 and 74: COMPACT STUDIOS Even more Portastud
Page 75 and 76: that had accompanied me throughout
Page 77 and 78: Power Management The new lightweigh
Page 79 and 80:
ecorders 2013 MAYAH COMMUNICATIONS+
Page 81 and 82:
Capture your demos, interviews and
Page 83 and 84:
R-26 Hand Held Recorder - Professio
Page 85 and 86:
664 Field Mixer with Integrated Mul
Page 87 and 88:
Our Cooler Heads Prevail Our Twist-
Page 89 and 90:
ecorders recorders 2012 2013 XCOM++
Page 91 and 92:
ROLAND SYSTEMS GROUP Roland was est
show all

Behringer X32 - Audio Media

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?