----- Original Message -----

From: Gavin Stephens

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:31 AM

Subject: [SPAM-LOW] [LPFM] Re: more of my rants, on vu metering again.

BTW, appart from my half asleep brain that should have proof read what I typed and spelled, the last paragraph was not referring to those I was talking about immediately prior to that. I was thinking of software developers at the end who call their meters VU meters when in fact they are very different to peak meters that their software implements.

 

Hopefully enlighting newbie LPFM'ers to the differences.

 

Although I haven't mentioned who the engineers I talked to were anyway, my comments were not to discredit young engineers these days, but to point out why we have hyper-compressed material. Not for doing things wrong, but for not being taught in engineering classes the difference.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gavin Stephens

To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au

Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:04 AM

Subject: more of my rants, on vu metering again.

Why is VU metering just the bee's knees?

(bizzzz go the busy bees)

 

Why is peak metering on it's own possibly bad level metering/monitoring pratice?

(taut taut)

 

For those who know those answers, I have something probably to learn from them. For those who are new to LPFM and have never used a VU meter but read my other posts on it...

 

Well first of all, going by my last rants on the subject I've really begun to appreciate VU metering. Even more so this time around.

 

I've often experimented with automation systems (that I can't afford, but I need to keep in touch with to help offer advice to those who I know do use them) that can play hooks of songs to come in the hour. I like the idea of pre-selling the best of what's to come and skip over anything in between.

 

I went back to playing with hooks after normalising my audio library using a VU meter(setting amplification levels by hand in a preview mode in cool edit for each and every audio track while watching a VU meter before deciding on clicking apply, think I have RSI now, click goes my wrists).

 

I was orginally turned off by live hooks of songs in a promo because the audio loudness varied greatly from song to song when all audio was normalised to the same peak, say 98% which is what, about 0.175dB or something from clipping. Compressors just couldn't handle the wide dynamic changes of some songs with in a few seconds then back to other hyper compressed stuff in the blink of an eye.

 

I suddenly thought (as thunder rolled in during my brainstorm and couldn't get enough volume in my headphones to be satisfied) I must listen to a hooks demonstration with the audio all the very close to the same loudness to the human ear (gee what an old idea that is, the VU meter, but us digital age chaps have to learn so much so fast at a young age we don't have time to appreciate the past, which I now do). What a nice polished sound!!! Yet another reenforcement to use your ears first, VU metering as a guide second, and peak meters LAST to avoid clipping when recording OR normalising an audio library on a PC.

 

A rip (love the old vynil needle scratch sound making jingles), normalise to the same one size fits all (hears the engineer trying to make his belt buckle size more comfortable while no one else is in the studio) peak level and forget habit isn't the best practise, epsecially for LPFM with low budget compressors (like the automotive counterpart, the one's that take hours buzzing to inflate a tire off a 12 volt socket compared to the one's at the commercial gas station that go band pass filter, multiband DING DING DING done with a spetacular volume increase) little own owning a stand along automated gain controller. For another example...

 

I used to be lazy and put segue points in my songs going roughly by peak levels on the PC (click click click, hum go the PC fans while everyone else is enjoying sunlight). Another mistake I made. Now going back and putting segue points in using a VU meter as a guide and setting audio compression down the chain to pause gain reduction at a certain level drop to allow for a nice segue in the average level domain, sounds almost perfect, everytime. Finally, some slight fades on songs after compressors and limiters in a controlled automation environment, something automation is sopose to sound like. Like it's live, not a quick fix to no staff (ah the days when we had our own technicians looking after the speghetti on the pay roll I hear some say, something a little before my time).

 

What a difference going back to old school metering makes to the final product.

 

I've yet to get a professional sound card with +4dBu balanced outputs yet aswell. Since I've got a spare 6dB on most songs of peak headroom on the PC, I plan to make 14dB of dynamic range (14dB less noise) back up by using a $200-$300 balanced output sound card.

 

I'm also still impressed (just dumb, not dumb founded) by the nicer sound of uncompressed audio that's not working the sound cards output to it's maximum. (yawn, it's more fun hearing segues on an automation system for the first time after using reel to reel, carts, and in some ealier pioneer attitudes, hi-fi VHS recorded from compact disc without gaps of a RANDOM setting on their cd stacker than possibly reading this post).

 

So for LPFM, I'm still a big fan of VU based audio levels on hard disk (those mezmorising dnacing little needles on a nice warm backlight chunk of cardboard), not peak. It means less expensive audio levelers and compressors, with a nicer more consistant audio level still going in to a transmitter that the human ear listening at the other end hears. Again, something worth considering when LPFM budgets are a big problem, and even without a budget, it still sounds nicer and more consistant.

 

Don't think by having some songs on a hard disk at -15dBFS with others peaking around -6dBFS is going to rob you of signal to noise ratio (I hear the burglars coming for my PC, tip toeing around to be heard by the microphones in a radio play) on the song with the lower level. Using VU metering, that lower level song on the PC is more compressed and just as loud to the ear at the higher peak level reading material. The human ear doesn't hear any difference in the noise floor between the two even if you see a difference bouncing around on digital peak meters on the PC. It's masked by the more compressed songs, and covered by a more peaky/dynamic song.

 

It now anoys me seeing studios with peak meters only, they give you NO true idea of the average level your studio is dealing with, that the human ear hears at the end of it.

 

Well that's my rant again. Don't mind my bizzare mental side tracks in brackets along the way. What ever happened to the theatre of the mind, radio's more dull than the quietness on a remote transmitter hill top these days. Well, commercial radio anyway.

 

On a final note, (I just can't stop). I asked another local radio engineer about using VU meters on their new dazzly (I was foaming at the mouth, a thought you don't need to picture) console lately, and a sound recording engineer teacher about using VU metering anywhere when it comes to signal flow and average dynamics. To my shock....

 

I was gob smacked at the answers. One said VU meters are to slow and almost usless compared to the speed of the computer meters, so they want to make sure mics have their own processors because dynamics seems a no no in audio (I hear the sqaure waves coming, coming around the bend. Well I shot a man in reno....) That depiste setting a level on the VU meter with the peak meter on the PC, digital peaks still clip on the PC. Well of course, since on anything more dynamic than a sinewave at 1KHz the meters are very different for their own unique purposes.

 

If someone doesn't know what they were having that problem, it's worth understanding the metering difference if you come across them when feed with the same tone.

 

While the other said I hate dynamics, wave forms with quiet spots on a PC give me the sh*t$ said the teacher. And VU's, they're cool, retro meters (they're making a come back because they're retro?). I got the impression both didn't know what a volume unit meter was. That kinda made me sad that they don't work with audio using metering closer to the human ear like the VU meter, but would rather compress the hell out of something to make sure the waveform looks better in an audio editor, rather than pressing zoom on a digital audio editor.

 

Now if only those people including professionals that describe their computer based audio editing software with VU meters, would say, PEAK meters... NOT VU meters, new production engineering enthusiats would realise there are difference, and find out their own distinctions.

 

Gavin.

.

Only real difference between VU and PPM is speed - VU is a more
realistic average of signal level over a longer period of time
whereas PPM is showing the highest peaks the signal is reaching over
that time period (i.e. its faster with a hold on it.) All my
technician life I have judged with what the listener uses - ears.
I've never judged a signal by a VU or PPM they are only indicators.

Stewart.

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., Brian Gallagher
<brianislay@...> wrote:
>
> Whew! Gavin
>   I agree!
>   When its all sais and done,regardless of the metering used,one
still has to use ones ears to equalise volume levels.
>   Peak meters such as my ppm are fine for setting peak prog levels
to fit within the confines  of the system but they do nothing for
setting up average and even volume levels.VU meters and your ears do
it better but sadly it seems as tho this is a dying art.
>   Brian
>
> Gavin Stephens <gstephens@...> wrote:
>             Why is VU metering just the bee's knees?
>   (bizzzz go the busy bees)
>
>   Why is peak metering on it's own possibly bad level
metering/monitoring pratice?
>   (taut taut)
>
>   For those who know those answers, I have something probably to
learn from them. For those who are new to LPFM and have never used a
VU meter but read my other posts on it...
>
>   Well first of all, going by my last rants on the subject I've
really begun to appreciate VU metering. Even more so this time around.
>
>   I've often experimented with automation systems (that I can't
afford, but I need to keep in touch with to help offer advice to
those who I know do use them) that can play hooks of songs to come in
the hour. I like the idea of pre-selling the best of what's to come
and skip over anything in between.
>
>   I went back to playing with hooks after normalising my audio
library using a VU meter(setting amplification levels by hand in a
preview mode in cool edit for each and every audio track while
watching a VU meter before deciding on clicking apply, think I have
RSI now, click goes my wrists).
>
>   I was orginally turned off by live hooks of songs in a promo
because the audio loudness varied greatly from song to song when all
audio was normalised to the same peak, say 98% which is what, about
0.175dB or something from clipping. Compressors just couldn't handle
the wide dynamic changes of some songs with in a few seconds then
back to other hyper compressed stuff in the blink of an eye.
>
>   I suddenly thought (as thunder rolled in during my brainstorm and
couldn't get enough volume in my headphones to be satisfied) I must
listen to a hooks demonstration with the audio all the very close to
the same loudness to the human ear (gee what an old idea that is, the
VU meter, but us digital age chaps have to learn so much so fast at a
young age we don't have time to appreciate the past, which I now do).
What a nice polished sound!!! Yet another reenforcement to use your
ears first, VU metering as a guide second, and peak meters LAST to
avoid clipping when recording OR normalising an audio library on a
PC.
>
>   A rip (love the old vynil needle scratch sound making jingles),
normalise to the same one size fits all (hears the engineer trying to
make his belt buckle size more comfortable while no one else is in
the studio) peak level and forget habit isn't the best practise,
epsecially for LPFM with low budget compressors (like the automotive
counterpart, the one's that take hours buzzing to inflate a tire off
a 12 volt socket compared to the one's at the commercial gas station
that go band pass filter, multiband DING DING DING done with a
spetacular volume increase) little own owning a stand along automated
gain controller. For another example...
>
>   I used to be lazy and put segue points in my songs going roughly
by peak levels on the PC (click click click, hum go the PC fans while
everyone else is enjoying sunlight). Another mistake I made. Now
going back and putting segue points in using a VU meter as a guide
and setting audio compression down the chain to pause gain reduction
at a certain level drop to allow for a nice segue in the average
level domain, sounds almost perfect, everytime. Finally, some slight
fades on songs after compressors and limiters in a controlled
automation environment, something automation is sopose to sound like.
Like it's live, not a quick fix to no staff (ah the days when we had
our own technicians looking after the speghetti on the pay roll I
hear some say, something a little before my time).
>
>   What a difference going back to old school metering makes to the
final product.
>
>   I've yet to get a professional sound card with +4dBu balanced
outputs yet aswell. Since I've got a spare 6dB on most songs of peak
headroom on the PC, I plan to make 14dB of dynamic range (14dB less
noise) back up by using a $200-$300 balanced output sound card.
>
>   I'm also still impressed (just dumb, not dumb founded) by the
nicer sound of uncompressed audio that's not working the sound cards
output to it's maximum. (yawn, it's more fun hearing segues on an
automation system for the first time after using reel to reel, carts,
and in some ealier pioneer attitudes, hi-fi VHS recorded from compact
disc without gaps of a RANDOM setting on their cd stacker than
possibly reading this post).
>
>   So for LPFM, I'm still a big fan of VU based audio levels on hard
disk (those mezmorising dnacing little needles on a nice warm
backlight chunk of cardboard), not peak. It means less expensive
audio levelers and compressors, with a nicer more consistant audio
level still going in to a transmitter that the human ear listening at
the other end hears. Again, something worth considering when LPFM
budgets are a big problem, and even without a budget, it still sounds
nicer and more consistant.
>
>   Don't think by having some songs on a hard disk at -15dBFS with
others peaking around -6dBFS is going to rob you of signal to noise
ratio (I hear the burglars coming for my PC, tip toeing around to be
heard by the microphones in a radio play) on the song with the lower
level. Using VU metering, that lower level song on the PC is more
compressed and just as loud to the ear at the higher peak level
reading material. The human ear doesn't hear any difference in the
noise floor between the two even if you see a difference bouncing
around on digital peak meters on the PC. It's masked by the more
compressed songs, and covered by a more peaky/dynamic song.
>
>   It now anoys me seeing studios with peak meters only, they give
you NO true idea of the average level your studio is dealing with,
that the human ear hears at the end of it.
>
>   Well that's my rant again. Don't mind my bizzare mental side
tracks in brackets along the way. What ever happened to the theatre
of the mind, radio's more dull than the quietness on a remote
transmitter hill top these days. Well, commercial radio anyway.
>
>   On a final note, (I just can't stop). I asked another local radio
engineer about using VU meters on their new dazzly (I was foaming at
the mouth, a thought you don't need to picture) console lately, and a
sound recording engineer teacher about using VU metering anywhere
when it comes to signal flow and average dynamics. To my shock....
>
>   I was gob smacked at the answers. One said VU meters are to slow
and almost usless compared to the speed of the computer meters, so
they want to make sure mics have their own processors because
dynamics seems a no no in audio (I hear the sqaure waves coming,
coming around the bend. Well I shot a man in reno....) That depiste
setting a level on the VU meter with the peak meter on the PC,
digital peaks still clip on the PC. Well of course, since on anything
more dynamic than a sinewave at 1KHz the meters are very different
for their own unique purposes.
>
>   If someone doesn't know what they were having that problem, it's
worth understanding the metering difference if you come across them
when feed with the same tone.
>
>   While the other said I hate dynamics, wave forms with quiet spots
on a PC give me the sh*t$ said the teacher. And VU's, they're cool,
retro meters (they're making a come back because they're retro?). I
got the impression both didn't know what a volume unit meter was.
That kinda made me sad that they don't work with audio using metering
closer to the human ear like the VU meter, but would rather compress
the hell out of something to make sure the waveform looks better in
an audio editor, rather than pressing zoom on a digital audio editor.
>
>   Now if only those people including professionals that describe
their computer based audio editing software with VU meters, would
say, PEAK meters... NOT VU meters, new production engineering
enthusiats would realise there are difference, and find out their own
distinctions.
>
>   Gavin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>

Why is VU metering just the bee's knees?

(bizzzz go the busy bees)

 

Why is peak metering on it's own possibly bad level metering/monitoring pratice?

(taut taut)

 

For those who know those answers, I have something probably to learn from them. For those who are new to LPFM and have never used a VU meter but read my other posts on it...

 

Well first of all, going by my last rants on the subject I've really begun to appreciate VU metering. Even more so this time around.

 

I've often experimented with automation systems (that I can't afford, but I need to keep in touch with to help offer advice to those who I know do use them) that can play hooks of songs to come in the hour. I like the idea of pre-selling the best of what's to come and skip over anything in between.

 

I went back to playing with hooks after normalising my audio library using a VU meter(setting amplification levels by hand in a preview mode in cool edit for each and every audio track while watching a VU meter before deciding on clicking apply, think I have RSI now, click goes my wrists).

 

I was orginally turned off by live hooks of songs in a promo because the audio loudness varied greatly from song to song when all audio was normalised to the same peak, say 98% which is what, about 0.175dB or something from clipping. Compressors just couldn't handle the wide dynamic changes of some songs with in a few seconds then back to other hyper compressed stuff in the blink of an eye.

 

I suddenly thought (as thunder rolled in during my brainstorm and couldn't get enough volume in my headphones to be satisfied) I must listen to a hooks demonstration with the audio all the very close to the same loudness to the human ear (gee what an old idea that is, the VU meter, but us digital age chaps have to learn so much so fast at a young age we don't have time to appreciate the past, which I now do). What a nice polished sound!!! Yet another reenforcement to use your ears first, VU metering as a guide second, and peak meters LAST to avoid clipping when recording OR normalising an audio library on a PC.

 

A rip (love the old vynil needle scratch sound making jingles), normalise to the same one size fits all (hears the engineer trying to make his belt buckle size more comfortable while no one else is in the studio) peak level and forget habit isn't the best practise, epsecially for LPFM with low budget compressors (like the automotive counterpart, the one's that take hours buzzing to inflate a tire off a 12 volt socket compared to the one's at the commercial gas station that go band pass filter, multiband DING DING DING done with a spetacular volume increase) little own owning a stand along automated gain controller. For another example...

 

I used to be lazy and put segue points in my songs going roughly by peak levels on the PC (click click click, hum go the PC fans while everyone else is enjoying sunlight). Another mistake I made. Now going back and putting segue points in using a VU meter as a guide and setting audio compression down the chain to pause gain reduction at a certain level drop to allow for a nice segue in the average level domain, sounds almost perfect, everytime. Finally, some slight fades on songs after compressors and limiters in a controlled automation environment, something automation is sopose to sound like. Like it's live, not a quick fix to no staff (ah the days when we had our own technicians looking after the speghetti on the pay roll I hear some say, something a little before my time).

 

What a difference going back to old school metering makes to the final product.

 

I've yet to get a professional sound card with +4dBu balanced outputs yet aswell. Since I've got a spare 6dB on most songs of peak headroom on the PC, I plan to make 14dB of dynamic range (14dB less noise) back up by using a $200-$300 balanced output sound card.

 

I'm also still impressed (just dumb, not dumb founded) by the nicer sound of uncompressed audio that's not working the sound cards output to it's maximum. (yawn, it's more fun hearing segues on an automation system for the first time after using reel to reel, carts, and in some ealier pioneer attitudes, hi-fi VHS recorded from compact disc without gaps of a RANDOM setting on their cd stacker than possibly reading this post).

 

So for LPFM, I'm still a big fan of VU based audio levels on hard disk (those mezmorising dnacing little needles on a nice warm backlight chunk of cardboard), not peak. It means less expensive audio levelers and compressors, with a nicer more consistant audio level still going in to a transmitter that the human ear listening at the other end hears. Again, something worth considering when LPFM budgets are a big problem, and even without a budget, it still sounds nicer and more consistant.

 

Don't think by having some songs on a hard disk at -15dBFS with others peaking around -6dBFS is going to rob you of signal to noise ratio (I hear the burglars coming for my PC, tip toeing around to be heard by the microphones in a radio play) on the song with the lower level. Using VU metering, that lower level song on the PC is more compressed and just as loud to the ear at the higher peak level reading material. The human ear doesn't hear any difference in the noise floor between the two even if you see a difference bouncing around on digital peak meters on the PC. It's masked by the more compressed songs, and covered by a more peaky/dynamic song.

 

It now anoys me seeing studios with peak meters only, they give you NO true idea of the average level your studio is dealing with, that the human ear hears at the end of it.

 

Well that's my rant again. Don't mind my bizzare mental side tracks in brackets along the way. What ever happened to the theatre of the mind, radio's more dull than the quietness on a remote transmitter hill top these days. Well, commercial radio anyway.

 

On a final note, (I just can't stop). I asked another local radio engineer about using VU meters on their new dazzly (I was foaming at the mouth, a thought you don't need to picture) console lately, and a sound recording engineer teacher about using VU metering anywhere when it comes to signal flow and average dynamics. To my shock....

 

I was gob smacked at the answers. One said VU meters are to slow and almost usless compared to the speed of the computer meters, so they want to make sure mics have their own processors because dynamics seems a no no in audio (I hear the sqaure waves coming, coming around the bend. Well I shot a man in reno....) That depiste setting a level on the VU meter with the peak meter on the PC, digital peaks still clip on the PC. Well of course, since on anything more dynamic than a sinewave at 1KHz the meters are very different for their own unique purposes.

 

If someone doesn't know what they were having that problem, it's worth understanding the metering difference if you come across them when feed with the same tone.

 

While the other said I hate dynamics, wave forms with quiet spots on a PC give me the sh*t$ said the teacher. And VU's, they're cool, retro meters (they're making a come back because they're retro?). I got the impression both didn't know what a volume unit meter was. That kinda made me sad that they don't work with audio using metering closer to the human ear like the VU meter, but would rather compress the hell out of something to make sure the waveform looks better in an audio editor, rather than pressing zoom on a digital audio editor.

 

Now if only those people including professionals that describe their computer based audio editing software with VU meters, would say, PEAK meters... NOT VU meters, new production engineering enthusiats would realise there are difference, and find out their own distinctions.

 

Gavin.

 

 

 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----

From: Gavin Stephens

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 10:09 PM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] Power Increase?

Off topic and for Ross,

 

How many years did it take you to learn computer programming to the level you could create the likes of the studio player of yours? I realise that depends on a good genuis in the relevant learning area.

 

I've often debated learning computer science but I'm almost 29 and wondering if at this age it's even worth trying to learn. I'm not very academic, I learn very rapidly hands on and an a technical sponge when it comes to learning.

 

Maybe I should just start a business and hire someone that can do it. But I'd imagne it takes years to write a piece of software like your studio player for example?

 

I'd love to write an automation programme one day. I love the old classics like www.edfm.co.uk which I'm playing around with at the moment. Those old 16-bit automation programmes were small, fast and functional.

 

For a hoot I thought I'd setup a windows for workgroups PC networked to my machine that stores all my wave files since wfw can't handle large drives. Then throw a few sound cards in.

 

I'm young enough to appreciate new things, and old enough to remember the first windoz.

 

Gavin.

.

----- Original Message -----

From: Gavin Stephens

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:04 AM

Subject: more of my rants, on vu metering again.

Why is VU metering just the bee's knees?

(bizzzz go the busy bees)

 

Why is peak metering on it's own possibly bad level metering/monitoring pratice?

(taut taut)

 

For those who know those answers, I have something probably to learn from them. For those who are new to LPFM and have never used a VU meter but read my other posts on it...

 

Well first of all, going by my last rants on the subject I've really begun to appreciate VU metering. Even more so this time around.

 

I've often experimented with automation systems (that I can't afford, but I need to keep in touch with to help offer advice to those who I know do use them) that can play hooks of songs to come in the hour. I like the idea of pre-selling the best of what's to come and skip over anything in between.

 

I went back to playing with hooks after normalising my audio library using a VU meter(setting amplification levels by hand in a preview mode in cool edit for each and every audio track while watching a VU meter before deciding on clicking apply, think I have RSI now, click goes my wrists).

 

I was orginally turned off by live hooks of songs in a promo because the audio loudness varied greatly from song to song when all audio was normalised to the same peak, say 98% which is what, about 0.175dB or something from clipping. Compressors just couldn't handle the wide dynamic changes of some songs with in a few seconds then back to other hyper compressed stuff in the blink of an eye.

 

I suddenly thought (as thunder rolled in during my brainstorm and couldn't get enough volume in my headphones to be satisfied) I must listen to a hooks demonstration with the audio all the very close to the same loudness to the human ear (gee what an old idea that is, the VU meter, but us digital age chaps have to learn so much so fast at a young age we don't have time to appreciate the past, which I now do). What a nice polished sound!!! Yet another reenforcement to use your ears first, VU metering as a guide second, and peak meters LAST to avoid clipping when recording OR normalising an audio library on a PC.

 

A rip (love the old vynil needle scratch sound making jingles), normalise to the same one size fits all (hears the engineer trying to make his belt buckle size more comfortable while no one else is in the studio) peak level and forget habit isn't the best practise, epsecially for LPFM with low budget compressors (like the automotive counterpart, the one's that take hours buzzing to inflate a tire off a 12 volt socket compared to the one's at the commercial gas station that go band pass filter, multiband DING DING DING done with a spetacular volume increase) little own owning a stand along automated gain controller. For another example...

 

I used to be lazy and put segue points in my songs going roughly by peak levels on the PC (click click click, hum go the PC fans while everyone else is enjoying sunlight). Another mistake I made. Now going back and putting segue points in using a VU meter as a guide and setting audio compression down the chain to pause gain reduction at a certain level drop to allow for a nice segue in the average level domain, sounds almost perfect, everytime. Finally, some slight fades on songs after compressors and limiters in a controlled automation environment, something automation is sopose to sound like. Like it's live, not a quick fix to no staff (ah the days when we had our own technicians looking after the speghetti on the pay roll I hear some say, something a little before my time).

 

What a difference going back to old school metering makes to the final product.

 

I've yet to get a professional sound card with +4dBu balanced outputs yet aswell. Since I've got a spare 6dB on most songs of peak headroom on the PC, I plan to make 14dB of dynamic range (14dB less noise) back up by using a $200-$300 balanced output sound card.

 

I'm also still impressed (just dumb, not dumb founded) by the nicer sound of uncompressed audio that's not working the sound cards output to it's maximum. (yawn, it's more fun hearing segues on an automation system for the first time after using reel to reel, carts, and in some ealier pioneer attitudes, hi-fi VHS recorded from compact disc without gaps of a RANDOM setting on their cd stacker than possibly reading this post).

 

So for LPFM, I'm still a big fan of VU based audio levels on hard disk (those mezmorising dnacing little needles on a nice warm backlight chunk of cardboard), not peak. It means less expensive audio levelers and compressors, with a nicer more consistant audio level still going in to a transmitter that the human ear listening at the other end hears. Again, something worth considering when LPFM budgets are a big problem, and even without a budget, it still sounds nicer and more consistant.

 

Don't think by having some songs on a hard disk at -15dBFS with others peaking around -6dBFS is going to rob you of signal to noise ratio (I hear the burglars coming for my PC, tip toeing around to be heard by the microphones in a radio play) on the song with the lower level. Using VU metering, that lower level song on the PC is more compressed and just as loud to the ear at the higher peak level reading material. The human ear doesn't hear any difference in the noise floor between the two even if you see a difference bouncing around on digital peak meters on the PC. It's masked by the more compressed songs, and covered by a more peaky/dynamic song.

 

It now anoys me seeing studios with peak meters only, they give you NO true idea of the average level your studio is dealing with, that the human ear hears at the end of it.

 

Well that's my rant again. Don't mind my bizzare mental side tracks in brackets along the way. What ever happened to the theatre of the mind, radio's more dull than the quietness on a remote transmitter hill top these days. Well, commercial radio anyway.

 

On a final note, (I just can't stop). I asked another local radio engineer about using VU meters on their new dazzly (I was foaming at the mouth, a thought you don't need to picture) console lately, and a sound recording engineer teacher about using VU metering anywhere when it comes to signal flow and average dynamics. To my shock....

 

I was gob smacked at the answers. One said VU meters are to slow and almost usless compared to the speed of the computer meters, so they want to make sure mics have their own processors because dynamics seems a no no in audio (I hear the sqaure waves coming, coming around the bend. Well I shot a man in reno....) That depiste setting a level on the VU meter with the peak meter on the PC, digital peaks still clip on the PC. Well of course, since on anything more dynamic than a sinewave at 1KHz the meters are very different for their own unique purposes.

 

If someone doesn't know what they were having that problem, it's worth understanding the metering difference if you come across them when feed with the same tone.

 

While the other said I hate dynamics, wave forms with quiet spots on a PC give me the sh*t$ said the teacher. And VU's, they're cool, retro meters (they're making a come back because they're retro?). I got the impression both didn't know what a volume unit meter was. That kinda made me sad that they don't work with audio using metering closer to the human ear like the VU meter, but would rather compress the hell out of something to make sure the waveform looks better in an audio editor, rather than pressing zoom on a digital audio editor.

 

Now if only those people including professionals that describe their computer based audio editing software with VU meters, would say, PEAK meters... NOT VU meters, new production engineering enthusiats would realise there are difference, and find out their own distinctions.

 

Gavin.

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ross Levis

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:48 PM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] Power Increase?

RSM is on holiday so don't expect much this time of the year.  They did hint at releasing a change before the end of the year but it didn't happen.

 

The increase to 1 watt sounds like it will happen but with some sort of height restriction, which will result in much less coverage for many operators.

 

It will be interesting to see how they do it.  The LPFM system in the US has a height restriction of 30 metres above the surrounding area, and they may implement something similar here.  That may make it illegal to put an antenna on a high building, which I know several operators do.

 

We are hoping for no restrictions, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

Regards,
Ross.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Callum Thomas

To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au

Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:26 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Power Increase?

Has there been any more news in regards to the proposed power increase for LPFM operators?

Last I heard (and I'm a bit out of the loop) there was talk of it being increased from 500mW to 1W.

Thanks!

.

----- Original Message -----

From: Callum Thomas

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:26 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Power Increase?

Has there been any more news in regards to the proposed power increase for LPFM operators?

Last I heard (and I'm a bit out of the loop) there was talk of it being increased from 500mW to 1W.

Thanks!

.

----- Original Message -----

From: Callum Thomas

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:26 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Power Increase?

Has there been any more news in regards to the proposed power increase for LPFM operators?

Last I heard (and I'm a bit out of the loop) there was talk of it being increased from 500mW to 1W.

Thanks!

I suspect the timeshifting has nothing to do with it.  I think it's 1 x
FM = one licence.  1 x Internet Stream = another licence.

Therefore, 1 x FM + 1 x Stream = 2 licences (regardless of timeshifted
or not)




grantthoms wrote:
>
> Hmm this is all very true. I never thought of it like that.
>
> Ok, bad idea to timeshift. More expense, more hassle etc.
>
> Perhaps I will use this to simply aircheck the station instead. Might
> make more sense. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Grant
>
> _._,___

----- Original Message -----

From: grantthoms

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 5:53 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Timeshifting...

Hi All,

So, say I was to say I had worked out a way to 'timeshift' my radio
station... And was tempted to have an additional shoutcast stream at
-13 hours to current time (so it is in gmt...) Would APRA and RIANZ
frown upon something like that? Or would it be covered in my current
licences?

Its the same music that went to air 12 hours ago on my FM and Internet
stream, but is playing out over the net again 12 hours later (if I go
ahead with it).

It's still an idea at the moment, not sure wether to proceed with it
or not. Currently its just a test going no further than my computer
room. It means a stream would be available for GMT which is actually
playing the correct hour (ie: NZ 5am hour playing at 5am hour gmt)

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Grant

Hmm this is all very true. I never thought of it like that.

Ok, bad idea to timeshift. More expense, more hassle etc.

Perhaps I will use this to simply aircheck the station instead. Might
make more sense. :)

Cheers,
Grant



--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Gavin Stephens" <gstephens@...>
wrote:
>
> To try and put it in a black and white way of looking at it....
>
> You don't purchase the right to broadcast the same song again free
of charge ;o) That's why there's licenses and royalties to start with.
There's no such thing as a free lunch so to speak.
>
> Techncially, your shoutcast stream would be a different broadcast
station or a stand-alone internet station not the same as the FM
broadcast station. They become two different broadcast operations even
if they carry the same brand name/product.
>
> Infact it's messier if you have to file reports than just
simulcasting another station. When you simulcast, you just write the
other licensed station name down. And they review their own reports
for the details lacking on yours.
>
> Another aspect to consider, if it's a re-broadcast it's duplicated
audio from a master audio library (meaning more fee's for the
programme supplier) and the details would need to be filed on a
seperate report for the station to file to APRA, unless the programme
supplier has supplied those details to APRA before hand in case of a
syndicated programme.
>
> This is APRA and PPNZ etc... we're talking about. There's no grey
area, everything costs and everythings a hassle.
>
>
> Gavin.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: grantthoms
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 5:53 PM
>   Subject: [LPFM] Timeshifting...
>
>
>   Hi All,
>
>   So, say I was to say I had worked out a way to 'timeshift' my radio
>   station... And was tempted to have an additional shoutcast stream at
>   -13 hours to current time (so it is in gmt...) Would APRA and RIANZ
>   frown upon something like that? Or would it be covered in my current
>   licences?
>
>   Its the same music that went to air 12 hours ago on my FM and Internet
>   stream, but is playing out over the net again 12 hours later (if I go
>   ahead with it).
>
>   It's still an idea at the moment, not sure wether to proceed with it
>   or not. Currently its just a test going no further than my computer
>   room. It means a stream would be available for GMT which is actually
>   playing the correct hour (ie: NZ 5am hour playing at 5am hour gmt)
>
>   Thoughts?
>
>   Cheers,
>   Grant
>

----- Original Message -----

From: grantthoms

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 5:53 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Timeshifting...

Hi All,

So, say I was to say I had worked out a way to 'timeshift' my radio
station... And was tempted to have an additional shoutcast stream at
-13 hours to current time (so it is in gmt...) Would APRA and RIANZ
frown upon something like that? Or would it be covered in my current
licences?

Its the same music that went to air 12 hours ago on my FM and Internet
stream, but is playing out over the net again 12 hours later (if I go
ahead with it).

It's still an idea at the moment, not sure wether to proceed with it
or not. Currently its just a test going no further than my computer
room. It means a stream would be available for GMT which is actually
playing the correct hour (ie: NZ 5am hour playing at 5am hour gmt)

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Grant

Hi All,

So, say I was to say I had worked out a way to 'timeshift' my radio
station... And was tempted to have an additional shoutcast stream at
-13 hours to current time (so it is in gmt...)  Would APRA and RIANZ
frown upon something like that? Or would it be covered in my current
licences?

Its the same music that went to air 12 hours ago on my FM and Internet
stream, but is playing out over the net again 12 hours later (if I go
ahead with it).

It's still an idea at the moment, not sure wether to proceed with it
or not. Currently its just a test going no further than my computer
room. It means a stream would be available for GMT which is actually
playing the correct hour (ie: NZ 5am hour playing at 5am hour gmt)

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Grant

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Jepson

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:08 PM

Subject: [SPAM-LOW] Re: [LPFM] STL questions

You will find it very difficult to obtain dual or triple hop 900mhz link licences in some areas of the country  due to frequency re use factors 

.

At the studio you use a dyndns IP updater thingee.... so you can do your
shoutcast/aac stream/server there.

At the transmitter site you run another shoutcast server there, but this
server goes in RELAY/server mode. The relay server mode for shoutcast
sucks like a magnet the audio stream from your studio stream through the
internet... and if your IP changes (at either end)...its back on air
within 1 - 3 mins at my experience... unless of course Telecom is having
a bad day with internet going down multiple times on a day (or somebody
cuts a fiber optic cable).

At your transmitter site your receiving computer connects to the local
(Quite often on the same machine) relay server with winamp or whatever.
If your still concerned that you might be off air you can set up another
audio stream at your transmitter site so you can monitor the transmitter
site output. But this might not be needed if your transmitter site is in
line of site of the studio, a radio would survice in that case.

  From my experience most streaming solution produce delay of between 5
seconds and 3 minutes on each node. So your studio clock might need to
be turned back a few minutes.

Cheers Geoff Barkman

grantthoms wrote:
>
> It should work, as long as your IP doesn't change.. or other issues
> like internet probs :)
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@...
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "bay107fm" <bay107fm@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi and Happy New Year
> >
> > I'm still on the STL issue that I raised earlier. I'm going to try
> > running the STL via a AAC+ stream at 64kbps.
> >
> > Has anybody tried this and is the service reliable enoungh to use this
> > type of link?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John
> > TheFlea
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Ross Levis

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:52 PM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] STL questions

900Mhz links need line of sight, so to go around a hill you'll need an intermediate point to on link which can see both locations, so that gets even more expensive.

 

I see there is a very small licence free area in the GURL between 40.66 and 40.7Mhz allowing 1 watt eirp.  This is very narrow, but it would likely go 15k around/over a hill with a 3 element yagi receive antenna.

 

It also allows 100mw next door between 40.8Mhz and 41.0Mhz, so a 1 watt centre frequency on 40.7 may be close to legal provided the signal is fairly narrow.  I think you could squeeze 15Hkz of audio out of that bandwidth.

 

I believe the UK use a band around 40Mhz for STL, so you may be able to import a TX/RX from the UK at reasonable cost.

 

Although I could be completely wrong.

 

Cheers,

Ross.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Jepson

To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:00 PM

Subject: [SPAM-LOW] Re: [LPFM] STL questions

You will need aprox $ 8K to $10K to do it properly 

the Big Two mostly use 900 mhz   with some long or mono links

still on 400Meg band

A common stl tx and rx is made by  RVR in Italy

you will also have to licence and pay a yearly fee

 

cheers

 

----- Original Message -----

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:45 PM

Subject: [LPFM] STL questions

I've tried online streaming to our transmitter in Kerikeri, and it sucks.

Dropouts, poor quality, never know when it's working and when it's not...

So now I need to investigate over-the-air STL like the big guys do.

I'm pig-ignorant about this. All advice gratefully accepted. What do I
need to be looking at to send a signal to a repeater base 15 km away,
on the other side of some hills?

What I'd like to do would be to mount an STL antenna on our big (22
metre) mast pointing north to Kerikeri, and another STL antenna
pointing east to Paihia, around 14 km away.

You can see how the 25 km rule kills us here in the bush, but that's
another argument.

All advice gratefully received, yes I can spend some (not a huge sum
but say $2 000) money on this.

Philip
Primetime Radio 1ZZ

.

----- Original Message -----

From: Gavin Stephens

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:26 PM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] STL questions

The license costs are pretty small. The last one I came in contact with was around $50 a year for 400MHz for a about a 25KM. It was the one-off engineering fee that was around $500 or just under, to create the license.

 

It was later upgraded from a narrowband to wideband stereo channel around the same frequency for the same $50 a year.

 

We were fortunate enough to source a second hand 10-12KHz wide I think (no not 15KHz) narrowband old mono tait transmitter and receiver for around $3,000 plus about $300 per antenna. Don't know if you can find those sorts of things lying around anymore.

 

So $2,000 is a little bit of an understatement for two receiving locations and especially with hills in mind.

 

 

Gavin.

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Jepson

To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:00 PM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] STL questions

You will need aprox $ 8K to $10K to do it properly 

the Big Two mostly use 900 mhz   with some long or mono links

still on 400Meg band

A common stl tx and rx is made by  RVR in Italy

you will also have to licence and pay a yearly fee

 

cheers

 

----- Original Message -----

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:45 PM

Subject: [LPFM] STL questions

I've tried online streaming to our transmitter in Kerikeri, and it sucks.

Dropouts, poor quality, never know when it's working and when it's not...

So now I need to investigate over-the-air STL like the big guys do.

I'm pig-ignorant about this. All advice gratefully accepted. What do I
need to be looking at to send a signal to a repeater base 15 km away,
on the other side of some hills?

What I'd like to do would be to mount an STL antenna on our big (22
metre) mast pointing north to Kerikeri, and another STL antenna
pointing east to Paihia, around 14 km away.

You can see how the 25 km rule kills us here in the bush, but that's
another argument.

All advice gratefully received, yes I can spend some (not a huge sum
but say $2 000) money on this.

Philip
Primetime Radio 1ZZ

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Jepson

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:00 PM

Subject: [SPAM-LOW] Re: [LPFM] STL questions

You will need aprox $ 8K to $10K to do it properly 

the Big Two mostly use 900 mhz   with some long or mono links

still on 400Meg band

A common stl tx and rx is made by  RVR in Italy

you will also have to licence and pay a yearly fee

 

cheers

 

----- Original Message -----

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:45 PM

Subject: [LPFM] STL questions

I've tried online streaming to our transmitter in Kerikeri, and it sucks.

Dropouts, poor quality, never know when it's working and when it's not...

So now I need to investigate over-the-air STL like the big guys do.

I'm pig-ignorant about this. All advice gratefully accepted. What do I
need to be looking at to send a signal to a repeater base 15 km away,
on the other side of some hills?

What I'd like to do would be to mount an STL antenna on our big (22
metre) mast pointing north to Kerikeri, and another STL antenna
pointing east to Paihia, around 14 km away.

You can see how the 25 km rule kills us here in the bush, but that's
another argument.

All advice gratefully received, yes I can spend some (not a huge sum
but say $2 000) money on this.

Philip
Primetime Radio 1ZZ

.

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Jepson

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:00 PM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] STL questions

You will need aprox $ 8K to $10K to do it properly 

the Big Two mostly use 900 mhz   with some long or mono links

still on 400Meg band

A common stl tx and rx is made by  RVR in Italy

you will also have to licence and pay a yearly fee

 

cheers

 

----- Original Message -----

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:45 PM

Subject: [LPFM] STL questions

I've tried online streaming to our transmitter in Kerikeri, and it sucks.

Dropouts, poor quality, never know when it's working and when it's not...

So now I need to investigate over-the-air STL like the big guys do.

I'm pig-ignorant about this. All advice gratefully accepted. What do I
need to be looking at to send a signal to a repeater base 15 km away,
on the other side of some hills?

What I'd like to do would be to mount an STL antenna on our big (22
metre) mast pointing north to Kerikeri, and another STL antenna
pointing east to Paihia, around 14 km away.

You can see how the 25 km rule kills us here in the bush, but that's
another argument.

All advice gratefully received, yes I can spend some (not a huge sum
but say $2 000) money on this.

Philip
Primetime Radio 1ZZ

----- Original Message -----

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:45 PM

Subject: [LPFM] STL questions

I've tried online streaming to our transmitter in Kerikeri, and it sucks.

Dropouts, poor quality, never know when it's working and when it's not...

So now I need to investigate over-the-air STL like the big guys do.

I'm pig-ignorant about this. All advice gratefully accepted. What do I
need to be looking at to send a signal to a repeater base 15 km away,
on the other side of some hills?

What I'd like to do would be to mount an STL antenna on our big (22
metre) mast pointing north to Kerikeri, and another STL antenna
pointing east to Paihia, around 14 km away.

You can see how the 25 km rule kills us here in the bush, but that's
another argument.

All advice gratefully received, yes I can spend some (not a huge sum
but say $2 000) money on this.

Philip
Primetime Radio 1ZZ

I've tried online streaming to our transmitter in Kerikeri, and it sucks.

Dropouts, poor quality, never know when it's working and when it's not...

So now I need to investigate over-the-air STL like the big guys do.

I'm pig-ignorant about this. All advice gratefully accepted. What do I
need to be looking at to send a signal to a repeater base 15 km away,
on the other side of some hills?

What I'd like to do would be to mount an STL antenna on our big (22
metre) mast pointing north to Kerikeri, and another STL antenna
pointing east to Paihia, around 14 km away.

You can see how the 25 km rule kills us here in the bush, but that's
another argument.

All advice gratefully received, yes I can spend some (not a huge sum
but say $2 000) money on this.

Philip
Primetime Radio 1ZZ

From: grantthoms

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 12:37 AM

Subject: [LPFM] Re: Streaming

It should work, as long as your IP doesn't change.. or other issues
like internet probs :)

--- In LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au, "bay107fm" <bay107fm@...> wrote:
>
> Hi and Happy New Year
>
> I'm still on the STL issue that I raised earlier. I'm going to try
> running the STL via a AAC+ stream at 64kbps.
>
> Has anybody tried this and is the service reliable enoungh to use this
> type of link?
>
> Regards,
>
> John
> TheFlea
>

It should work, as long as your IP doesn't change.. or other issues
like internet probs :)


--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "bay107fm" <bay107fm@...> wrote:
>
> Hi and Happy New Year
>
> I'm still on the STL issue that I raised earlier. I'm going to try
> running the STL via a AAC+ stream at 64kbps.
>
> Has anybody tried this and is the service reliable enoungh to use this
> type of link?
>
> Regards,
>
> John
> TheFlea
>

Hi and Happy New Year

I'm still on the STL issue that I raised earlier. I'm going to try
running the STL via a AAC+ stream at 64kbps.

Has anybody tried this and is the service reliable enoungh to use this
type of link?

Regards,

John
TheFlea

We are getting reports of a station that is over riding us in Huntly on 107.1

From what we have been able to establish it is probably broadcasting out of
Ngaruwahia.

If anybody know of this station can they please contact me.

Robert
TLC Radio

Robert S Dew
FreeWheelingNZ.com Tours
4SightSeeing Information & Bookings
Britomart Transport Centre
12 Queen St
Auckland