Does anyone else like FM?

[SigmaR1]

I'l still listening to FM broadcast here in France. Many public stations (because of the quality of the programs and editorial independency), including a fine classical music station (France Musique). I'm proud to pay taxes to maintain such a service.

I'm still using FM tuners: a Kenwood KT 8300 (shown p4 of the thread ) which is a beauty and a pleasure tu use with all these nice meters and velvet feeling knobs. It was replaced some years ago by a quieter Sony ST SA5ES (Built in France!). No DAB+, but I think I'm going to switch to a Wiim pro or something like that to be able to listen to specific french programs (France Musique provides thematic web broadcasts such as contemporary music, concerts, etc...) and international radios.

 

[Waxx]

I think you're confusing dynamic range compression with bit rate compression.
The audio has its dynamic range compressed to sound louder, and with multiband compression, to have more 'punch' and to create a signature sound for the station. The link from studio to FM transmitter is either analogue, in which case there's no extra compression, or these days usually digital, but using either FLAC, or high rate lossy like 320k AAC or NICAM so effectively transparent.

S

No, i say they user analog an digital compression, in compressing the dynamics of the music, and compressing the file format (to a lossy format that is small). And most do both way to hard and so destroy the music so much that i left radio largely alone (even if i broadcast myself on a local unif radio station). If i listen radio, it's in my car largely.

The Orban is dynamic compression, the stream then gets coded mostly by a computer to (in our case 256kps OPUS OGG format and send to the broadcast antenna that in our case stands about 2KM from the studio on one of the hightest points of the region over an internet stream. I have as broadcaster no influence on that, it's decided by the direction and executed by techs (i'm not one of them) like decided.

 

[userPaul]

I assumed your visualization comment was about the relation between amplitude and frequency of the baseband signal and the look of the FM signal. I posted the link with that in mind, not for the math. Just to see how the FM signal (blue) changes when you change the frequency of the baseband signal (red):

View attachment 420903

or the amplitude of the baseband signal:

View attachment 420904

I think I like reading charts.

 

[Mark1]

If the average signal level is set such that there is plenty of headroom for peaks to be broadcast without clipping them the volume control has to be set higher for normal listening.
Most people don't do this so channels which clip all the peaks off then raise the average signal level sound better.

It is the same as the loudness wars in digital files and the reason why people think efficient speakers are more dynamic. Most people seem to think there is a source/speaker independant "natural" volume control position and tend not to set it high enough for inputs with wide dynamic range, and on classical music those peaks may only happen once or twice in a 20 minute work so many won't notice if they are cut off. Then if they leave the volume control where it was for a pop station it won't sound good, if they just re-set the volume they can enjoy the peaks when they come (if the system is good enough).

Yes, I guess FM dynamic range is being dumb down for the preferences of the average listeners.

 

[mhardy6647]

source: https://vinylpursuit.com/cdn/shop/f...rack_03cbef3a-12a6-496a-8fcb-ab1532c70894.jpg

No static at all.

 

[Biblob]

I actually really dislike listening to FM, I notice it sounds very bloated. As if they boost <100-300 hz a lot, so little crap speaker are able to make some bass. It really doesn't balanced to me.

 

[Anton S]

With respect to just about any metric - S/N ratio, frequency response, distortion, dynamic range, etc. - FM sound quality is demonstrably inferior to many alternatives and always has been. However, I've always had a tuner in my system and still do. When I migrated from a receiver to separates in the 70's, my first tuner was Kenwood KT-600, which I later replaced with a McIntosh MR-78 (still have that one in storage), but I'm now running this one:

I occasionally listen to broadcast radio when I'm busy with other things and just want some background music. We have a couple of PBS stations in my area that broadcast very good commercial-free content using DAB, and those are the ones I normally select.

 

[Mark1]

I think you're confusing dynamic range compression with bit rate compression.
The audio has its dynamic range compressed to sound louder, and with multiband compression, to have more 'punch' and to create a sound for the station. The link from studio to FM transmitter is either analogue, in which case there's no extra compression, or these days usually digital, but using either FLAC, or high rate lossy like 320k AAC or NICAM so effectively transparent.

S

How am I confusing dynamic range compression with bit rate compression? I don't think I am and have always been clear in labeling each. I hope the digital music source is FLAC or 320k AAC, and that's probably why I originally claimed FM sounds better than lower bit free streaming. I have no idea what any FM station's bit rate and codec really is, but I have my doubts it's always 320K or better. I imagine in some cases the studio is far from the transmitter, and the music signal is uploaded in digital over the internet to the transmitter station. I was just saying that wouldn't be any obstacle to using a high bit rate music source.

 

[EJ3]

I actually really dislike listening to FM, I notice it sounds very bloated. As if they boost <100-300 hz a lot, so little crap speaker are able to make some bass. It really doesn't balanced to me.

Another good reason to have an (or various) equalizer(s) in your system, to fix things like that, as well as a compandor (dbx & such).
These things give one more listening options (particularly for cruddy sources).
There is various ways to get around these things. On the other hand, it's simpler to use great sources.
But, for me, since being on this site & having my gear choices of known to be very good to great gear available, it's fun to sometimes try to better the FM source via the various means available.
Others are happy just listening, as I am quite a bit of the time. But then, I get the urge to play with things & this is one of my great pleasures.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

the music signal is uploaded in digital over the internet to the transmitter station

It isn't. Circuits to transmitters are private.

 

[sergeauckland]

How am I confusing dynamic range compression with bit rate compression? I don't think I am and have always been clear in labeling each. I hope the digital music source is FLAC or 320k AAC, and that's probably why I originally claimed FM sounds better than lower bit free streaming. I have no idea what any FM station's bit rate and codec really is, but I have my doubts it's always 320K or better. I imagine in some cases the studio is far from the transmitter, and the music signal is uploaded in digital over the internet to the transmitter station. I was just saying that wouldn't be any obstacle to using a high bit rate music source.

FM stations don't have a bit rate or a codec. If you mean that the STL uses a low bit rate to get the signal from the studio to the transmitter, that may well be, but it's VERY poor engineering practice. But then, as most stations have got rid of their proper engineers and use IT trained whizz-kids as broadcast engineers, I'm not surprised at anything that goes on. Radio has long since given up on technical quality, it's all about loudness and advertising revenue. BBC Radio 3 and France Musique are two notable exceptions, and even they aren't what they used to be.

S.

 

[Mark1]

It isn't. Circuits to transmitters are private.

I read someone claim that the dj is often at a home studio uploading the music to the transmitter studio some distance away. And that many stations are corporate syndicated music programming with content that was sent across country. I don't know how true that is, and don't think it's important. I was just saying that it would be no obstacle to using higher bit rate music sources.

At the FM transmitter station, I realize that's a private circuit, where the digital music signal is processed, converted to analog, modulated, and broadcasted, right?

 

[Mark1]

With respect to just about any metric - S/N ratio, frequency response, distortion, dynamic range, etc. - FM sound quality is demonstrably inferior to many alternatives and always has been.

But I'm not sure FM sound quality is inferior in reality. At an extreme example compared to SXM sound quality it isn't. And not inferior to low bite rate HD Radio and DAB, along with other free low bit streaming sources. The dynamic range compression and loudness is an issue with FM in practice, but I don't think the metrics of FM capability is much of an obstacle to sound quality vs low bit streaming. I noticed those Orban processers work with digital FM and streaming too, so no one has to miss out on the wonders of dynamic compression and loudness .

 

[Mark1]

FM stations don't have a bit rate or a codec. If you mean that the STL uses a low bit rate to get the signal from the studio to the transmitter, that may well be, but it's VERY poor engineering practice. But then, as most stations have got rid of their proper engineers and use IT trained whizz-kids as broadcast engineers, I'm not surprised at anything that goes on. Radio has long since given up on technical quality, it's all about loudness and advertising revenue. BBC Radio 3 and France Musique are two notable exceptions, and even they aren't what they used to be.

S.

By low bit rate and codec I mean the original music source or signal. I, could be wrong, believe generally the station's and DJ's music play list wherever it might be originally located is always digital, at the transmission studio processed for dynamic compression, EQ etc, and probably only analog at the point of modulation. Anyway, I agree with everything you're saying.

 

[Frank Dernie]

FM sound quality is demonstrably inferior to many alternatives and always has been.

It was always technically better than either LP records or AM radio, though it was often modified to suit people listening on poratable radios.
BBC Radio 3 live broadcasts in the 1970s were probably the best sound quality I ever had at home.

 

[Mark1]

No, i say they user analog an digital compression, in compressing the dynamics of the music, and compressing the file format (to a lossy format that is small). And most do both way to hard and so destroy the music so much that i left radio largely alone (even if i broadcast myself on a local unif radio station). If i listen radio, it's in my car largely.

The Orban is dynamic compression, the stream then gets coded mostly by a computer to (in our case 256kps OPUS OGG format and send to the broadcast antenna that in our case stands about 2KM from the studio on one of the hightest points of the region over an internet stream. I have as broadcaster no influence on that, it's decided by the direction and executed by techs (i'm not one of them) like decided.

I think you're discussing digital FM HD/DAB. What I been talking about is strictly analog FM. Why is digital FM station dynamically compressing with an Orban processer? Doesn't digital FM signal allow for high dynamic range? 256K seems pretty good for digital FM. Is any DAB ever higher than that? I'm curious what's the bitrate and codec before the Orban dynamic compressor?

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is where I think analog FM is better. A higher bit rate could be used before digital to analog conversion and modulation. Besides, it appears digital FM and streaming is getting dynamically compressed too anyway.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

By low bit rate and codec I mean the original music source or signal. I, could be wrong, believe generally the station's and DJ's music play list wherever it might be originally located is always digital, at the transmission studio processed for dynamic compression, EQ etc, and probably only analog at the point of modulation. Anyway, I agree with everything you're saying.

The original music is centrally stored as uncompressed WAV or FLAC in large professional libraries which offer music as a service to broadcasters.

Chaining multiple digital lossless technologies in series is a disaster! E.g. MP3 passed through online real-time lossy streaming encoders or lossy DAB encoders sounds absolutely ******* awful! Digital lossy conversion only happens once in the chain.

 

[Mark1]

The original music is centrally stored as uncompressed WAV or FLAC in large professional libraries which offer music as a service to broadcasters.

Chaining multiple digital lossless technologies in series is a disaster! E.g. MP3 passed through online real-time lossy streaming encoders or lossy DAB encoders sounds absolutely ******* awful! Digital lossy conversion only happens once in the chain.

Well that's good to know the original music is lossless, if I'm understanding correctly. I read people claiming the original music is often digitally compressed files, so I wasn't sure.

Where in the chain does the digital lossy conversion happen once? Why can't the music signal be lossless into the DA conversion before modulation?

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Where in the chain does the digital lossy conversion happen once? Why can't the music signal be lossless into the DA conversion before modulation

At the final stage. It's part of the encoding and framing process for feeding the transmitter.

 

[Anton S]

It was always technically better than either LP records or AM radio, though it was often modified to suit people listening on poratable radios.
BBC Radio 3 live broadcasts in the 1970s were probably the best sound quality I ever had at home.

When was FM "better"? In the 70's, FM broadcasts consisted of LP's and analog tape that were further compressed and rolled off on top, and then received by a tuner with at best 1/5% THD and nothing at all above about 15KHz?