Forums | Search | Archives

All Forums  Radio  Music on AM radio

Author	Topic
SJM Posts: 78	Posted - Thu Mar 28, 2002 11:31 am  Recently I completed a music CD which got some AM air play. I noticed that the reverb was far more pronounced than in any other setting. I already use reverb sparingly. Is there anything I can do, short of reducing the reverb even further, to alleviate this problem. Just for the record, I do use stereo reverb in the hopes of creating depth. Thanks, StephenJ
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Thu Mar 28, 2002 1:19 pm  Hi SJM, Well, if the reverb on the end product is more than you desire, I think you'll have to go back and apply another setting that will suit your taste. There are some things you could try, but personally I don't feel they would give you satisfactory results. One would be to try and gate the reverb tails, so that they are not so pronounced. Again, I don't think that would sound as good/natural. When you are effecting your tracks, is there a particular sequence of events that you use? The reason for asking is...... sometimes (most times!) if you apply reverb before compressing the file, the compression will have an impact on the reverb. (same goes for E.Q.) Try different sequences of events (comp, reverb, E.Q., hard limiting etc...) and see if you get results that are more to your liking. Good Luck Voodoo _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
tomcat Location: USA Posts: 345	Posted - Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:13 pm  In your stereo mix, was the reverb effect more pronounced on either the left or right channel? The reason I ask is because I used to work at an FM that simulcast on AM, but instead of combining the left and right into one mono track for the AM, they just took one stereo channel and sent that out as the AM. This was very obvious when a song had a lot of stereo effect, like the end chorus on "Black Water" by the Doobie Brothers, you'd only hear about every other line. What I'm getting at is if your reverb was, for example, mostly on the right channel, and the radio station was only broadcasting the right channel, it might sound alot more pronounced than when listening to your original stereo mix. Just a thought. _________________ Tom Robinson Production Supervisor WLAV/WKLQ/WODJ/WBBL Grand Rapids, Michigan
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Thu Mar 28, 2002 9:18 pm  Quote: The reason I ask is because I used to work at an FM that simulcast on AM, but instead of combining the left and right into one mono track for the AM, they just took one stereo channel and sent that out as the AM. I can't believe that any responsible broadcast station would do such a thing! Didn't anyone say anything to them? I consider this disgraceful. Referring to the question, I have lost count of the number of times I have said, on this very forum, that it is essential to check any stereo mix in mono. SJM has just found out why. _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
tomcat Location: USA Posts: 345	Posted - Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:46 am  Quote: Quote: The reason I ask is because I used to work at an FM that simulcast on AM, but instead of combining the left and right into one mono track for the AM, they just took one stereo channel and sent that out as the AM. I can't believe that any responsible broadcast station would do such a thing! Didn't anyone say anything to them? I consider this disgraceful. I never said it was a *responsible* station, in fact it was quite a joke! Summer of '88 I went to Europe for 3 weeks, so instead of hiring someone to fill my afternoon shift, or have a part-timer fill in, they had me record a bunch of general, generic song intros and weather forecasts ("clear tonight, and plenty of sunshine tomorrow with a high in the 70's, with more of today's hottest hits up next") on CART! Then, they had a board op plug the drops in a couple times an hour. An early, primitave version of voice tracking! Edited by - tomcat on 03/29/2002 06:50:12 AM _________________ Tom Robinson Production Supervisor WLAV/WKLQ/WODJ/WBBL Grand Rapids, Michigan
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Fri Mar 29, 2002 11:38 am  Quote: I never said it was a *responsible* station, in fact it was quite a joke! True - you didn't and it obviously was a joke - although not a very funny one for the artists they must have mangled this way. _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
SJM Posts: 78	Posted - Mon Apr 08, 2002 10:00 am  First off, thanks for the replies. ~ The reverb sounds fine in stereo, in fact, it sounds like it could actually use a little more. ~ Although I know of a radio station that does broadcast only one side of the stereo (There ought to be a law against that), my recordings have the same effects on both sides, so it couldn't be that. Giving it more thought, I think I may know the answer. This particular radio station has the worst quality when reproducing music. Most of the music's EQ seems to be squashed to the mid range level. It could be that my effects reside predominantely in those band widths and subsequently are boosted higher than normal. Does this sound like a possibility? Thanks, StephenJ
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Mon Apr 08, 2002 11:19 am  Quote: Most of the music's EQ seems to be squashed to the mid range level. It could be that my effects reside predominantely in those band widths and subsequently are boosted higher than normal. Does this sound like a possibility? Yes - indeed. Anything which is subsequently screwing around with EQ must have an effect and could make it sound like this. Also, of course, I expect they'll be compressing it out of sight as well. This will tend to make the 'quiet' reverb level sound louder. _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
shel777 Posts: 14	Posted - Tue Apr 09, 2002 7:04 pm  Possibly that station has heavy audio compression, which in that case would make he reverb more prominent during a second of dead-air in a song. But the real reason for AM stations using reverb (it the one in question indeed does) is, believe it or not, to extend its coverage! I know it's hard to believe, but two different engineers explained that to me. I'm no engineer, but the guys I spoke with were highly reliable sources. shel
Andrew Rose Location: United Kingdom Posts: 875	Posted - Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:15 am  Surely there'll be a heavy degree of compression applied somewhere between the studio and the transmitter for AM, and there's only one thing that'll do for tastefully applied reverb... I'm so glad I no longer have to mix stuff with the BBC's AM Optimod in mind. You could fade somebody out 90% on the desk and listen off-air and they'd still be there as if you'd never touched the fader! Fair enough until you're trying to do anything tasteful... _________________ Andrew Rose www.pristineaudio.co.uk
Garrett D Posts: 1	Posted - Sat Apr 13, 2002 4:00 pm  SJM, Have you tried mixing the tracks to mono and listening to the result? I suspect it is possible for reverb to sound very different when mixed to mono. Either your original recording, or the reverb you applied, may be somewhat mono-incompatable. Delay or phase shift between stereo channels can alter the frequency balance of a mono mix. If the original tracks were not fully mono-compatable, then some of the original signal might be cancelling out, leaving more of the reverb effect. Or the reverb may simply sound more pronounced when squeezed to one channel, lacking the stereo space. -Garrett
	Topic

Page: