Special way to record for radio broadcast?

DelCallo wrote on 5/30/2007, 4:08 AM
So, I helped a friend record some of his folk tunes - voice and guitar for most of the selections, a string quartet and some singers for a couple of others.

I mixed everything for him and the result was quite pleasing (and quite good, if I do say so, myself).

That was several years ago. Last evening, I was chatting with him and he mentions that some of the selections were played on an internet radio station, that he thought the sound was muffled. Another friend tells him that there is a special way to record for radio - otherwise the sound is muffled and doesn't come through.

I am skeptical. I have read (here mostly) about compression to raise the volume of the soft portions and push everything else as high as it can go without distorting. I believe I understand that the original logic was to bring soft material up so that noise (like the sounds of wind and road noise) do not cover up those passages. I read somewhere that compression then became a tool to make one recording stand out (in comparison to other non-compressed recordings) and that, the compression war that ensued has caused most popular genre to be recorded in this manner.

. . . but I remain skeptical that anything other than a recording that sounds good when played on decent sound system at home equipment needs much to sound acceptable when the signal is initiated and received from a broadcast source.

So, can someone shed some light on the subject for me, please?

Thanks.

Del

Comments

jbolley wrote on 5/30/2007, 1:46 PM
I wonder if the issue is any more than a lack of volume combined with a lo-rate internet stream. How do the mixes compare to other commercial CDs?

Jesse
Chienworks wrote on 5/30/2007, 6:57 PM
Without hearing it, i would have to guess that the data compression (low bit rate) is the major culprit. Most internet radio is around 34Kbps which is quite low and considered less than AM quality. Why this low? So that people on dialup can still stream the signal. A few stations now offer alternative higher bitrate streams, but most of them either offer only 34Kbps or default to that setting.

The other culprit is probably dynamic compression. Acoustic music that is compressed poorly can sound muffled. The radio station probably has a general purpose compressor in line to even out the levels of any material that is played. Some can do the job pretty well, but others, especially if not set up correctly, can really squash the music badly. You can combat this some by making your own dynamically compressed mix. The more you compress your material the less the radio station will. The advantage is that you'll be able to control and tweak the compression process to make it sound as good as you can get it instead of it suffering some cookie-cutter compression settings during broadcast.
DelCallo wrote on 5/30/2007, 7:44 PM
Thanks for the replies. I don't even know which tunes were played - and I have no clue how my material compares with other commercial recordings. All I know is that it sounds great to me (I mean the recording quality - can't do too much for the talent!).

I have recorded my kids (both professional musicians), and that stuff was played on radio (that would be FM radio, however) and it all sounded quite good to my ears.

I suspect this business about a special recording/mixing technique for material intended for broadcast is but another line for which my 'friend' has fallen.

He's given his next project to this "special technique" fellow because the guy tells him he has "access to a state of the art recording studio."

I only have good mics, a good mixer, Vegas, and my ears (which often detect and try to intercept situations where my 'friend's' intonation is out of whack).

I say, to each his own. If the guy feels more comfy using someone who dazzles him with equipment, then, fine. Let them both live an be well. I am over it.

DelCallo
Jay M wrote on 7/28/2007, 1:53 PM
There are some things that can help.

because the bandwidth of the internet stream if so limited you can do at least 3 things:

1. Use the EQ to roll off a lot of the highend. The high end uses of lot of your precious bits, so if you cut it off you will have more bits available for the area in the frequency spectrum where MOST of you music lives. YOu Should also roll off as much low end for the same reason.

2. Compression. Too much will sound really bad when it's in a lossy internet codec. But just the right amount will make it sound loud and clear.

3. Noise reduction can be helpful if there is any noise on your recording. Like the EQ, noise in a file uses a lot of bits to faithfully reproduce. By getting rid of that you bits will be used to reproduce the music rather than the noise.

I say, to each his own. If the guy feels more comfy using someone who dazzles him with equipment, then, fine. Let them both live an be well. I am over it.

That statement reminds me of a funny line I once heard-
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS"

~Jay
Geoff_Wood wrote on 7/28/2007, 8:50 PM
The 'special technique' fellow is full of shit and is not to be trusted. He is a liar or a fool.

You record as well as you possibly can. What radio stations do to it afterwards is their perogative, unfortunately. I would expect 'internet radio' stations to themselves do whatever 'broadcast processing' (in effect re-mastering) they need to convert otherwise good sound into their requirements.

But considering they are accustomed to, and can only ever acheive mediocre quality at best, I would make no compromises in my recording technique.

Maybe his 'SOTA recording equipment' that is suited to 'internet radio' is a cassette-based 4 track, because that is all that is warranted for the transmission medium.

geoff