Radio's past professional mic standard now fading

[Greg Strickland]

semoochie- In the 1970's in Florida, I recall an AM station with a U87 in the news booth, and RE-20 in the air studio. I noticed the news mic had a nice sound with noticeable clarity, but that was about it. In another Florida market, an AM station put a U87 in the air studio and it sounded fabulous. But it replaced an RE-15, so the difference was no big surprise. Later on, an AM station used the original Audio Technica 4033, and it was excellent, but replaced a Sennheiser MD 421. As I recall the main thing that made a difference in those ancient times was the use of a compressor on the microphone. About 1975, I installed RE-20 and UREI LA-4 at a station. I would have put a U87 on in a heartbeat, but I did not have one. I bought the RE-20 with my own money (at a huge discount), and the radio station owner haggled with me to reimburse me even less for it.

But that was a long time ago.

Kelly A- I understand the logical reasoning behind what you said. Consider there are many businesses where small touches are made that most customers will not notice. I think the idea is small things are cumulative, and the culture of excellence and paying attention to detail eventually becomes noticeable to the customer. Think about a fine restaurant and what goes (and does not go) into a dish.

Brian Bowers and OLDRFGUY- thank you both for taking the time to share your detailed observations.
And everyone else too, this is an interesting topic.

 

[Kelly A]

Kelly A- I understand the logical reasoning behind what you said. Consider there are many businesses where small touches are made that most customers will not notice. I think the idea is small things are cumulative, and the culture of excellence and paying attention to detail eventually becomes noticeable to the customer. Think about a fine restaurant and what goes (and does not go) into a dish.

I agree to an extent. The point is; radio people and radio nerds get so caught up in microphones, mic processing, and aggressive audio processing. Ultimately, the goal is to provide clear audio to the listener. Going nuts trying to impress other radio nerds could go down a rabbit hole of needless expense for very little gain. (pardon the pun)
In fact, in this era of streaming and playlists on your phone, the last thing stations should be doing is trying to sound like the 70's.

 

[Brian Bowers]

Radio is an audio medium. It's also a competitive business. Since this *business* revolves around audio (and of course programming, but that's a whole other topic), and it's again, a competitive one, why wouldn't you want your *end product* to sound the best it can (and better than your competitor's) for your listeners (and not radio nerds)? Radio today is still on the air, so competition between radio stations still exists, otherwise there wouldn't still be tons of audio processors and mixing consoles on the market. There are still many owners, group owners, Chief Engineers, GM's and PD's who still care (and it's their job to care) about how their station(s) sound(s) on the air, as they should. I don't think any radio station Chief Engineer wants to have those conversations (I sure didn't) with his/her GM, owner or PD when they're asking why their station doesn't sound as good as the competition.

 

[Kelly A]

Radio is an audio medium. It's also a competitive business. Since this *business* revolves around audio (and of course programming, but that's a whole other topic), and it's again, a competitive one, why wouldn't you want your *end product* to sound the best it can (and better than your competitor's) for your listeners (and not radio nerds)?

But what's considered "better"? Better than what, one radio station competition over another? Are the listeners making that quantitative judgement? No, it's other radio people and radio nerds. With all due respect, neither count.

Radio today is still on the air, so competition between radio stations still exists, otherwise there wouldn't still be tons of audio processors and mixing consoles on the market.

True statement X2, but just because there is audio processing, doesn't mean anyone benefits by misusing them. Stupid loudness wars of the 70's and 80's were examples of where that all went bad. Today there are examples of those days that unwittingly are driving away listening from radio to satisfy their own egos.

There are still many owners, group owners, Chief Engineers, GM's and PD's who still care (and it's their job to care) about how their station(s) sound(s) on the air, as they should. I don't think any radio station Chief Engineer wants to have those conversations (I sure didn't) with his/her GM, owner or PD when they're asking why their station doesn't sound as good as the competition.

Again, who's saying the competition sounds better? Listeners? No, they probably aren't. Those who are making those claims are the same dinosaurs that were saying same back in the 80's. What the dinosaurs don't realize; is the competition isn't just the radio station down the block. Now the competition is streaming and playlists on phones. Those competitors don't need a bunch of compression, EQ, and clipping to compete for listeners.
And just like millions of years ago, dinosaurs eventually go extinct.

 

[Brian Bowers]

Again, who's saying the competition sounds better?

The people who are paying me. If you are the one signing my check, that's who I want to keep happy. Radio is a business. That also includes the non-com's, who rely on bringing in donations. Sorry, but radio nerds were the last people I was out to please.

 

[Kelly A]

The people who are paying me. If you are the one signing my check, that's who I want to keep happy. Radio is a business. That also includes the non-com's, who rely on bringing in donations. Sorry, but radio nerds were the last people I was out to please.

Sure I get the whole paycheck thing, but as an engineer, you should be counseling your management with a plan to potentially improve TSL in a modern environment, not sitting back and allowing them to drive listeners away with old school. Obviously if the PD or GM want it to sound like the 70's, that their prerogative, but to claim that adding a bunch of compression and special mics is going to enhance listening in modern times? Dinosaur thinking.

 

[Brian Bowers]

you should be counseling your management with a plan to potentially improve TSL in a modern environment

I have done this, but in my past experience, some are open to it, while others are not. I never force the issue. In my defense, I always guide listeners to the website audio stream when they're looking for higher quality audio. This is where I can lightly and creatively process without management breathing down my neck. Sampling many radio station's webstreams, I don't think I'm the only one doing this, as I can easily hear many times how much cleaner, and lightly processed, many radio station webstreams are, compared to the same station's OTA processed audio. Of course since most radio stations don't make any money off of their streams, they're reluctant to spend boat loads of money on their webstream audio processors, which many times results in cleaner, less processed, webstream audio.

 

[Kelly A]

I don't think I'm the only one doing this, as I can easily hear many times how much cleaner, and lightly processed, many radio station webstreams are, compared to the same station's OTA processed audio. Of course since most radio stations don't make any money off of their streams, they're reluctant to spend boat loads of money on their webstream audio processors, which many times results in cleaner, less processed, webstream audio.

When you think about it; isn't it unfortunate that you have to direct listeners to a webstream because the OTA audio is inferior? That in itself speaks volumes (pardon the pun).

I've been at the TV company here for about three years. One of the complaints when I walked through the door, was viewer complaints about audio. Audio levels, distortion, commercial breaks too loud, music louder than people on mic, requiring viewers to constantly adjust volume. Believe it or not, we actually have a PhD on the payroll in NYC who's the company audio expert. My initial solution was to purchase an audio processor for the program line to keep all the levels in check. That idea was shot down immediately. Company policy was no audio processing in the program line. So next we added subtle compression and EQ to individual mic and other channels mainly as a gentle leveling. The complaints stopped, and follow-up focus groups revealed that not overdoing audio processing created a much more pleasant experience from a viewer perspective. The levels were under control, and audio sounded more natural, not in-your-face, like the competition.

 

[Brian Bowers]

I think radio's a different beast though (compared to TV), because so much of it's listening audience is (supposedly) in cars (well, maybe not in NYC), and if that's the case, the need for making the station loud to consistently mask and overcome street noise *does* make some sense. Still, I agree, a nice balance between loud, and allowing for some dynamic range, can be achieved if desired (even harder today with the way pop music is mastered).

These days, whether some want to admit it or not (Greg, I think you've already raised this point), there are other devices than just heavy processing that can effect TSL, and those would be PPM watermarking, and the Voltair. I've done my own A-B tests, and I can clearly hear the difference when both are in the signal path, and when they are not. I'm not sure if you've ever played with a Voltair, but IMO, when cranked up, it can be brutal to audio, when PPM watermarking is taking place. There have also been radio stations that I've engineered that I have made processing adjustments to, or installed different audio processors over time; and observing the ratings for this month or two, I never noticed any dramatic increases or decreases in TSL or shares, that could relate to those new processors, or processing adjustments. Still however, the bean counters, GM's and PD's usually get their way.

We once owned a heritage classical station in our cluster, and believe me, it was one of the hardest stations to adjust audio processing for that I've ever experienced. Not only that, the PD of this classical station always wanted it to be louder on the dial. As most are aware, classical aficionado's are very picky about their audio. I once had a listener call because he was quite sure that the station had a L/R channel reversal taking place. I believe his argument was that the strings are always mixed on the right channel (or was it the left?). Now granted, when you've got hundreds of feet of wire running through a facility that has 5 radio stations in it, something like that *can* happen. I however am very picky about maintaining left and right channels throughout a facility, but, maybe there was a mistake. I first made a visual inspection, and everything from my vantage point looked correct. To satisfy the listener (and now my own curiosity), I momentarily lifted the right channel of the CD player playing at the time, to see if not only my right FM tuner monitor channel dropped at the console, but his dropped as well at home. It did, and the listener thanked us for going above and beyond, and apologized.

 

[Kelly A]

I think radio's a different beast though (compared to TV), because so much of it's listening audience is (supposedly) in cars (well, maybe not in NYC), and if that's the case, the need for making the station loud to consistently mask and overcome street noise *does* make some sense. Still, I agree, a nice balance between loud, and allowing for some dynamic range, can be achieved if desired (even harder today with the way pop music is mastered).

Back when I had KPLZ in Seattle under my watch, I worked with the (somewhat reluctant) gracious PD to test my theory; that backing off the processing by allowing actual dynamic range would actually driver higher TSL. I took all sorts of arrows from radio nerds on this very site, that KPLZ sounded too 'UN-processed, like the original recording'. Well duh!
Come to find out TSL saw almost a 29% increase, especially with women, in one book.

These days, whether some want to admit it or not (Greg, I think you've already raised this point), there are other devices than just heavy processing that can effect TSL, and those would be PPM watermarking, and the Voltair. I've done my own A-B tests, and I can clearly hear the difference when both are in the signal path, and when they are not. I'm not sure if you've ever played with a Voltair, but IMO, when cranked up, it can be brutal to audio, when PPM watermarking is taking place. There have also been radio stations that I've engineered that I have made processing adjustments to, or installed different audio processors over time; and observing the ratings for this month or two, I never noticed any dramatic increases or decreases in TSL or shares, that could relate to those new processors, or processing adjustments. Still however, the bean counters, GM's and PD's usually get their way.

You're right that like processing, if abused, Voltaire can potentially degrade audio. That said, I witnessed first hand via the use of a loaner 24/7/Telos TVC15 Watermark monitor 25-Seven TVC-15 Watermark Analyzer & Monitor
how the straight Nielsen watermark encoding can miss some important things. For example, watermarking seems to stop during voice. If I'm a news or talk station, that can be a problem. The other curious thing, is without a Voltaire, certain musical instruments can cause the watermarking to stop. Violins are a great example. If used correctly and not jacked up to 22, Voltaire can be a potentially valuable tool.

We once owned a heritage classical station in our cluster, and believe me, it was one of the hardest stations to adjust audio processing for that I've ever experienced. Not only that, the PD of this classical station always wanted it to be louder on the dial. As most are aware, classical aficionado's are very picky about their audio.

And the classical isteners seems to all have sound systems from the 70's, or Bose Waveradios, so therefore, it must be a problem with your station.

I once had a listener call because he was quite sure that the station had a L/R channel reversal taking place. I believe his argument was that the strings are always mixed on the right channel (or was it the left?). Now granted, when you've got hundreds of feet of wire running through a facility that has 5 radio stations in it, something like that *can* happen. I however am very picky about maintaining left and right channels throughout a facility, but, maybe there was a mistake. I first made a visual inspection, and everything from my vantage point looked correct. To satisfy the listener (and now my own curiosity), I momentarily lifted the right channel of the CD player playing at the time, to see if not only my right FM tuner monitor channel dropped at the console, but his dropped as well at home. It did, and the listener thanked us for going above and beyond, and apologized.

You're right there. Classical listeners are like ham radio nerds. They're always quick to tell you you've got a problem. Then you get to waste time to show them they're mistaken. I don't miss those days at all.

 

[Brian Bowers]

test my theory; that backing off the processing by allowing actual dynamic range would actually driver higher TSL.

You may not have been able to tell so far that I'm actually on your side. I end up getting in trouble more often than I should because I tend to go soft on processing, instead of balls to the wall. I really have to be *forced* to make it (OTA) louder, with lots of compression, clipping and limiting (streams are usually all mine). I will admit, I'm an audio purist, and when possible, prefer minimal to no audio processing at all...but that's my own personal taste (it just happens to sometimes overflow into my work).

 

[Earl Pilkington]

well to be fair, the quality of talent has gone down too, the days of having to have great pipes are long gone.

Crap in, crap out.... a good mic and processing is not going to overcome a weak voice sitting down in a home studio with no provision for sound attenuation from walls, etc.

So Sad but true in every broadcast industry. It's something that has been bugging the heck out of me since the introduction of 'video journalists' doing it all themselves - and not remembering to place their microphone in the right place, or relying on the camera mic. As a former TV news director I would have gone to graphics and told them to stand next to the damn mic rather than letting that rubbish go to air - but now - due to Skype et.al. the standards have gone down the toilet.

 

[MM797]

I continue to hear a good percentage of radio station on-air talent broadcasting (or voice-tracking) from out of the studio. To my ears, the cheapness of some of these microphones and acoustics lessens the professional sound of many radio stations, to the point of some of them sounding like cheap internet only radio stations.

I agree with you Brian. Many people used USB microphones and laptops and sometimes had side address microphones pointed at the kitchen ceiling so they could speak into the narrow end like they do in the studio with the RE20 microphones.

I have seen some pretty questionable choices of mics in radio stations over the years, but as an above commenter correctly stated, a big part of the problem with local and often network radio sound is the environment of the "studio" (I put that in quotes because the majority of radio studios I've seen don't rise to that standard of description: too much glass, little or no real soundproofing or reflection control.)

But on this topic: (dare I propose this) WHAT DO YOU yes you ALL THINK IS A GOOD RADIO STUDIO MICROPHONE?

I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative; I'm curious as to what folx think.

SENNHEISER 441 - again, nice round sound. a bit pricey.

Whaddya think?

I think the SENNHEISER 441 is the best dynamic microphone ever made but remember that this is a hyper-cardioid pattern microphone so if you are a DJ that moves around while you speak, to reach to one side or the other, then this mic will be the worst choice for you. Once you get more than slightly off of the center axis the sound level will drop down drastically. If you move around at all, my all around choice is the SENNHEISER 421. It has a very good sound and it's durable.

I've tried ribbon microphones for radio studio and found that POPPING the Ps is a big problem but the warm low end frequency and round sound were really great. And by popping Ps I'm not suggesting that anyone on the air was playing with their food. Some people had a food bias when I pointed this out to them.

The ELECTRO-VOICE RE20, and it's close relatives, as the radio standard, has really disappointed me. It's a mic that has about 2 inches of foam between the diaphragm and and the screen and it seems to take any detail out of the presentation and also homogenizes the sound into something that lacks much character. Maybe that's what you want? I don't know why except for that it's forgiving of poor microphone technique.

One big problem in radio these days is the lack of microphone technique by people and the resistance by them to take any instruction or correction on the subject. They see pictures of people speaking directly into the RE20 and so they can't get past that at all. Take a good dynamic microphone and speak across the front of it instead of directly into it. The closer you get to the diaphragm, the more that the proximity effect will kick in and give you a pronounced bass boost. Use your ears to find your own sweet spot. You won't get the P POPs and you will have some control over the sound.

Condenser microphones are especially good if your studio has no sound reflections which means you have acoustically treated the walls with absorption or diffusion and built the rooms without parallel walls.

And the acoustics part of things is often lacking in modern radio studio builds. Owners are often happy to build studios with parallel walls. One station that I knew well built with parallel walls against recommendations but added expensive and thick sound absorption panels to make them into a good rooms. Then years later a GM decided to pull off all of the sound treatment panels on the wall behind the DJ just to put up a huge floor to ceiling wall to wall image of a cowboy with a whip and boots and leather emphasised in a sort of fetish charm because radio to him was about images and billboards and wrapped vans and other things that I never understood. The room with some condenser mics turned into an echo space.

 

[Brian Bowers]

I installed a Sennheiser MD 441-U at a college station where I was not only CE for a while, but was on the air too. After installing it, in a matter of 3 hours, I removed it (after using it during my show). Even though I was already aware that it was a hyper-cardiod type, and I installed it to block some of the outside traffic and internal building noise (we had a building pump in the basement right below the studio, which if you listened closely, could be heard on the air when the mic was open - we weren't using a mic processor with downward expansion in those days either ), I felt the sweet spot was just too small for the DJ's to be comfortable with. I had a production guy who begged me to install a Sennheiser MKH 416 shotgun mic in his studio. Having already used one of these myself, I personally think they sound amazing...if you know how to work the sweet spot. I would have easily given him one, but since his studio doubled as a voice-track studio, I knew that the on-air talent would have trouble with it, so the studio never received one.

 

[OLDRFGUY]

Regarding the Electro-Voice RE 20.

This mic uses EV's proprietary "Variable D" process to achieve a tight cardioid pattern. This results in a significant shift in frequency response as one goes "off axis" (all directional mics have this effect to some extant; it it just MUCH more pronounced in the RE 20).

The effect can be used as a tool: At a station I worked at we had a guy who did various "characters" for a comedy afternoon show. He would swing his head on and off mic as he went in and out of character.

The RE 20's proximity effect gives a substantial lo-end boost to male voices - my sense is that is why it is popular in radio stations, since it can "man-up" a guy who may be less than stentorian. Conversely it can make female voices sound 'stuffy' or 'nasally' for the same reason. (The mic has a substantial phase shift thru the female vocal range).

One should note that the RE 20 is often used to mic things like kick drums, tympanies, and trombones, where you are trying to enhance the lo stuff.

 

[Brian Bowers]

With all due respect; the "Variable-D" design is actually there for "minimal proximity effect" (to quote EV). I personally believe that to be true. IMO, the Variable-D doesn't *completely eliminate* the proximity effect, but I do believe *it does* reduce it, as compared to the proximity effect encountered on many other popular broadcast mics.

RE20 Broadcast announcer's microphone with Variable‑D

 

[bossbill]

All this arguing over microphones is meaningless; what's really important is that talent "hit the post" when intro-ing songs.

 

[Brian Bowers]

what's really important is that talent "hit the post" when intro-ing songs.

No need to worry, now easily correctable with today's voice-tracking software.

 

[bossbill]

Tongue in cheek comment.

After 62 years in the biz, never once has any listener to any station I worked at or listened to, ever indicated that they listened to an on air talent because he/she "hit the post".
Yes of course, with voice-tracking you don't have to be good to "hit the post" these days. And apparently, you don't need more than some foam on your spare bedroom wall to fool listeners into believing that you're in a major market broadcast studio.

 

[Brian Bowers]

Tongue in cheek comment.

Caught it. Mine too.

never once has any listener to any station I worked at or listened to, ever indicated that they listened to an on air talent because he/she "hit the post".

Understood (and no argument here), but I do believe it was criteria for hiring some of the big Top 40 jocks years ago. At the time, I'm sure some PD's (and DJ's too) were drooling over who could consistently do it better than others.