Awful audio quality on KKBQ

[Kelly A]

I spent four decades in the broadcasting biz, so please don’t assume I don’t know anything.

Does that mean you understand that station's particular situation?

Some sort of audio analyzer that automatically samples and compares studio output versus air output would be handy. If the air output falls outside a certain tolerance parameter it could flag a human operator.

With DSP systems today, I'm sure that's possible. Given the number of stations who would buy one? Probably wouldn't be a very profitable venture.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I spent four decades in the broadcasting biz, so please don’t assume I don’t know anything.

Some sort of audio analyzer that automatically samples and compares studio output versus air output would be handy. If the air output falls outside a certain tolerance parameter it could flag a human operator.

Were someone to invent or create such a device, the issue would be cost and whether stations would invest the money. In the case of a station with at least the main HD channel, they would need one device for each service.

This sounds like a good idea that just is not practical.

 

[DavidEduardo]

If a station sounds like they're using dial-up, it might be. There is an LPFM in my area that broadcast audio without anything under 250 hz or so before it went down earlier this year. Are you saying they're successful? Because when they were on, I never heard any local underwriting or anything. Maybe that's why it failed. I did point out the missing bass to them several times, but my messages were ignored.

Keep in mind that many LPFM operators are driven by social agendas or things that are not directly part of radio. So they don't always have the technical knowledge needed to produce the cleanest signal. Even with the help of people like our LPFM moderator, Miche, some have limited finances.

And once an LPFM is on the air, the operator or group that built it may have no experience in fund raising.

So, for these reasons and more, we have to be much more tolerant of what we hear from LPFMs than we might be with commercial stations. So if there is a reason to complain, word it in a helpful and encouraging manner.

 

[Kelly A]

If a station sounds like they're using dial-up, it might be.

Again, it depends what the situation is. Maybe they had some technical problem? Again, they may not be monitoring the HD signals 24/7, especially given the local studio rules are gone.

There is an LPFM in my area that broadcast audio without anything under 250 hz or so before it went down earlier this year. Are you saying they're successful?

That's a different situation. Most LPFM's aren't successful because they have limited coverage. If nobody can hear you, nor cares, doesn't matter what the audio sounds like.

Because when they were on, I never heard any local underwriting or anything. Maybe that's why it failed. I did point out the missing bass to them several times, but my messages were ignored.

As mentioned, the vast majority of LPFM's struggle for a multitude of reasons. But that's a whole different topic.

 

[DavidEduardo]

With DSP systems today, I'm sure that's possible. Given the number of stations who would buy one? Probably wouldn't be a very profitable venture.

The issue is whether it's possible to create economically an algorithm that finds characteristics at variance that matter.

 

[Kelly A]

The issue is whether it's possible to create economically an algorithm that finds characteristics at variance that matter.

Bob Orban and I discussed something similar at NAB one year, where an audio processor DSP could monitor a receiver RF input, then send an alarm if the received audio was markedly different than what the audio processor produced. Bob said no doubt it could be done, but probably wouldn't be a big seller.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Bob Orban and I discussed something similar at NAB one year, where an audio processor DSP could monitor a receiver RF input, then send an alarm if the received audio was markedly different than what the audio processor produced. Bob said no doubt it could be done, but probably wouldn't be a big seller.

Sounds like something I would like to chat about with Greg Ogonowski next time we talk...

One of the issues will be what is compared to the over-thge-air signal... pre-processed studio audio, or the partially processed audio fed to the STL or...

 

[Kelly A]

One of the issues will be what is compared to the over-thge-air signal... pre-processed studio audio, or the partially processed audio fed to the STL or...

And to that point, more than just audio processing effects audio quality. STL, VSWR, older tube transmitters with micro-phonics, plus synchronous or non-synchronous AM noise, all can create audio degradation. Doubt if I can count the number of times I've had discussion with station owners that spending money on new audio processing won't cure a crappy transmission system.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Doubt if I can count the number of times I've had discussion with station owners that spending money on new audio processing won't cure a crappy transmission system.

That is abut the same kind of challenge as trying to teach algebra to my dog.

 

[Kelly A]

That is abut the same kind of challenge as trying to teach algebra to my dog.

Or an equal challenge of explaining the lack of importance of 6+ ratings. At least your dog wants to understand.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Were someone to invent or create such a device, the issue would be cost and whether stations would invest the money. In the case of a station with at least the main HD channel, they would need one device for each service.

This sounds like a good idea that just is not practical.

I wasn't thinking of a device that monitors continuously, but rather one that would sample and compare the audio output at designated intervals. In a cluster situation, it could hop amongst the different stations and any HD channels, so only one device would be needed. Just a thought.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I wasn't thinking of a device that monitors continuously, but rather one that would sample and compare the audio output at designated intervals. In a cluster situation, it could hop amongst the different stations and any HD channels, so only one device would be needed. Just a thought.

Then we get into the issue of the audio feed to the device from the original source and the RF.

If you compare the "clean" audio coming out of the studio pre-processing with the audio off a good quality receiver or perhaps from the mod monitor, you will get differences from the processing, the PPM encoding and even things like the actual shape of the pre-emphasis and de-emphasis curves at the "in" and "out" points.

 

[HTX]

Then we get into the issue of the audio feed to the device from the original source and the RF.

If you compare the "clean" audio coming out of the studio pre-processing with the audio off a good quality receiver or perhaps from the mod monitor, you will get differences from the processing, the PPM encoding and even things like the actual shape of the pre-emphasis and de-emphasis curves at the "in" and "out" points.

I’m not an expert at all in this subject. But couldn’t you make the device to where when you set it up you can get samples? So it’ll know what the irregularities will be and can ignore those?

 

[Kelly A]

I’m not an expert at all in this subject. But couldn’t you make the device to where when you set it up you can get samples? So it’ll know what the irregularities will be and can ignore those?

But what stations would buy one?

 

[AnyHuman]

But what stations would buy one?

Maybe KKBQ?

 

[Fieldtech1]

It's quite possible KKBQ knew there was a problem but was waiting on vendor support for a resolution. I'm sure the engineer tried to do what they could to resolve the issue.

 

[johndavis]

Bob Orban and I discussed something similar at NAB one year, where an audio processor DSP could monitor a receiver RF input, then send an alarm if the received audio was markedly different than what the audio processor produced. Bob said no doubt it could be done, but probably wouldn't be a big seller.

That's a good concept if you're assuming that the problem will always happen after the audio processor. But if the clocking for the DSP on the audio processor goes nuts, the audio would go to hell but the math would check out when comparing the RF sample to the DSP.

Equipment failure is always the equipment's option.