(NOTE: This question is nothing to do with the content of the different stations). As a Radio 4 listener, I have noticed that the acoustic quality of sound, specifically speech, seems poorer on Radio 1 and, to a lesser extent, Radio 2 than it is on Radio 3 and 4 (I am not referring to the presenter’s accents etc.). Is the BBC using inferior equipment or perhaps "dumbing down" the sound to give a pirate radio feel in order to attract younger listeners?
It’s probably due to compression of the dynamic range (companding) that is used to give a "bigger" sound to the station. This process is VERY evident (and intrusive, to me,) on Radio 1, but less-so Radio 2. Radio 3 would balk at such a travesty, whilst Radio 4, being all (well. mostly) speech does not need to use it much.
Companding entails raising the amplitude of quiet sections of programme feed so that they are easier to pick out amongst ambient noise around a listener (e.g. in a car). It is a useful process that can enhance marginal communications channels, but its use in entertainment broadcasts is questionable. (Perhaps I should say its OVER use…)
October 28th, 2009 at 5:16 am
It’s probably due to compression of the dynamic range (companding) that is used to give a "bigger" sound to the station. This process is VERY evident (and intrusive, to me,) on Radio 1, but less-so Radio 2. Radio 3 would balk at such a travesty, whilst Radio 4, being all (well. mostly) speech does not need to use it much.
Companding entails raising the amplitude of quiet sections of programme feed so that they are easier to pick out amongst ambient noise around a listener (e.g. in a car). It is a useful process that can enhance marginal communications channels, but its use in entertainment broadcasts is questionable. (Perhaps I should say its OVER use…)
References :
Too many years in a trade associated with broadcast engineering.