The "Prophetic" Processing History
Yesterday, Today and "Beyond"


Back

Go To Part #5


4/05/09
This series of articles re-published from www.radio-guide.com
issues of February to August 2007 original on PDF format.


Before his recent death, Jim Somich was very interested how audio processing has changed over the years – but even more so in considering what is to come in the future. In preparing these articles, Jim spoke with many folks involved in designing and building processors.
(Radio-Guide March 2007)



Processing
Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
by Jim Somich

Part #4

The Present – Things are Changing

Last month, a “virtual roundtable” discussion featured Bob Orban’s and Frank Foti’s comments on how their products brought us to where we are today. As we continue the discussion this month Cornelius Gould joins the table.

LEARNING FROM OTHERS
Jim Somich:
Cornelius Gould is a guy just starting out designing a DSP box, but I now he has been working in analog for years. Corny, who are your gurus? Who influences your processing ideas?
Cornelius Gould: Several people have influenced me over the years – definitely Steve Church and Frank Foti. Both of them are examples of how ordinary engineers with a dream can take them and grow them into a life-style. They also show the joys of having to continually raise the bar on what they do, aim to top that, and reset the bar again. Others include the work of Glen Clark, Bob Orban (what current processing geek has not been influenced by him?) and Mike Dorrough. The thing I admire about Glen Clark’s work is that he showed us another way to look at audio processing control system design. For me, his work on the Audio Prism showed me to never be afraid to look at audio processing from a different angle. Just because an idea is a radical departure from what was done before does not make it bad. My other influences have come from my contact with various end users over the recent years. As you and many others are aware, I’ve been heavily focused on trying to teach the new generation of end users how to use audio processors. I’ve done a few seminars on the topic at a couple of state broadcast conferences. Out of this work came some ideas on different approaches to user interaction with an audio processor.

Cornelius-Gould
Cornelius Gould

THE PATH FROM ANALOG TO DIGITAL
Jim Somich:
What is your DSP experience? How do you operate? What development systems do you use? Cornelius Gould: I’ve dabbled off and on for about 10 years with DSP development systems. I’ve been heavily researching DSP concepts and developing new ideas that can only be done with the power of DSP. Jim Somich: Do you have a current DSP project? Can you talk about it?
Cornelius Gould: Currently, I’m working on new ideas that I couldn’t do in analog. Namely, having the audio processor be smart. Since we are basically dealing with computers, whether it be a hardware-based DAP box, or in PC software. Why not take advantage and really build some “intelligence” into the audio processor? Since a lot of what I’m working on hasn’t been tried in any existing processor yet, I naturally won’t elaborate more on this. You never know what I may do with these new techniques!
Jim Somich: What, in your opinion, is the current state of audio processing and what do you see in the future? Are you doing anything with processing for HD Radio?
Cornelius Gould: The bulk of what I’m experimenting with applies directly to HD Radio and any other “coded audio” based content delivery system. For almost ten years, I have been running various streaming stations on the Internet. In my natural effort to make them sound their best, I have been developing a steady stream of tools to deal with coding artifacts. As luck would have it, the new wave of digital broadcasting could be described simply as “streaming audio over RF.” Almost overnight, it seems, there are suddenly lots of outlets I can throw my ideas at.
Jim Somich: Thank you, sir. I’ve got a feeling we will be hearing more from you in the future.

Corny process
Corny’s early op-amp based audio processor. Dubbed
the “Audio Chameleon,” it brought distinctive audio to
several Cleveland FM stations.


The-Internet-Chameleon
The “Internet Chameleon,” used VCA technology
and some lessons learned while at Telos/Cutting Edge.

PROCESSING IS A REFLECTION OF THE TIMES
Challenges to broadcasting are everywhere, from iPods to satellite radio to Internet Radio – and to some new gadget or gizmo that is just over the horizon. The way things have been going over the past decade, it even might appear that free over-the-air terrestrial broadcasting has a target painted on its back. Processing is not the most important thing in broadcasting; that honor probably goes to “compelling content.” Horribly processed stations have become successful due to great programming and sales. On the other hand, never have mediocre stations made it to the top just because they sounded great. But we are here to discuss the state of the processing art today, not programming, sales, or promotion. We leave the rest for others to analyze. Nevertheless, everything is intertwined and codependent. You cannot discuss the general state of processing without considering the general state of broadcasting – and broadcasting has been in better shape. In my opinion,  although we have the finest processing tools in history, we currently are doodling rather than painting Van Goghs!

A WINNING COMBINATION
The “magic” created by a #1 station is worth a quick analysis. I think back to the 70s and 80s and my time at WMMS, “The Buzzard” in Cleveland. It was the #1 station in Cleveland with boxcar numbers and #2 was not even close. Arguably, it was the best rock station in the country. We certainly had compelling content. Program director John Gorman and founding jock Denny Sanders lived and breathed “The Buzzard,” and you could certainly sense their passion on the air. Promotion Director Dan Garfinkel had the magic touch when it came to getting the word out and promoting everything WMMS did. Walt Tiburski and a crack sales department were able to command spot rates previously unheard of in the Cleveland market. The job of processing the station fell to me. In those days, the programming department had virtually no input as to the sound of the station and I was given free rein to try anything that I felt would give the station an edge. In a situation like this cost is no object, but this also can be a trap: with so many choices, it is easy to lose sight of the goal and experiment a little too much. Then you make wrong choices and the station never settles into a solid sound.

MAJOR CHOICES
Great Sound can make an average station a little better and an above-average station outstanding. But, like most big events in life, I had no idea at the time how important my choices were to the success of the station. I was just doing my job to the best of my abilities. We did not talk about “sonic signatures” in those days, but that was something for which we strived. Raw loudness was important, of course, but also a signal that jumped off the dial, and with a consistency and a big sound that made an emotional connection with the listener. These were all components of the ‘MMS sound of the 70s and 80s. Yet, the tools I had to work with were crude by today’s standards. At one point, I designed my own FM processor because I could not find anything else that gave me the sound that I was seeking. Many engineers have been in a situation where no commercial product would work as well as their own box; some of these creations even have led to successful commercial products.

PASSION
Permit me to side-track a bit for just a moment. At WMMS, we mocked our competition on and off the air and they ate our exhaust fumes as we stayed in the #1 position book after book. John Gorman had pet names for all the competing PDs, and never lost an opportunity to rub their noses in our success. It was his mind game and it worked; WMMS became legendary. People visited our studios just to see how it was done. Often they were disappointed; the equipment was nothing special. But the spirit of the Buzzard was not about fancy studios or luxurious offices – it came right out of the gut and hit the listener right in the brain, making an emotional connection that was difficult for many outsiders to understand or duplicate. On every level and in every department WMMS was a group of hippies with a passion to win, who were doing what they loved, and did it very well indeed. WMMS made a lot of money for the station’s owner. Why do I dwell on this? Maybe it is because I think this passion and spirit often is missing in today’s corporate, highly-consolidated, focus-grouped, cookie-cutter, voice-tracked, satellite-networked broadcasting industry.

BACK TO PROCESSING
But what does all this have to do with audio processing today? Hey, we are engineers. We install and repair equipment and read technical magazines. Right? Is that a description of you? Today, the sole engineer of a cluster of stations does not have the time to experiment with the fine nuances of audio processing. He does not have the time to just listen and think creatively about the sound. Yet, it is this experimentation that produces breakthroughs in broadcast sound. Sadly, I think we engineers – some of us – are actually losing the ability to listen creatively. The digital processors of today are amazing machines that can perform exceptionally well using one of the supplied presets. There is a great temptation to punch up a pre-packaged preset and let it ride. After all, there are a thousand tasks on your to-do list.

A LACK OF PASSION
Worse, with so many stations owned by so few corporations, there is less need to trounce the competition – which is often a sister station! This lack of competitive spirit can even extend to processor manufacturers who, at one time, were at war with each other, publicly and privately, and the result was a better product. The attitude today seems much more laid back and comfortable. Good for the blood pressure, but maybe not so good for the state of the processing art. Down and dirty competition is not polite, and it is not neat. Life in the trenches is never comfortable. What used to be war has become pleasantries and getting along. I believe something is lost when you let your guard down and think of your competition as anything but “the enemy.”

PRESCRIPTION FOR SUCCESS
If radio is to make a big comeback – and I think it will – it will require improvements on every level: programming, promotion, sales, and engineering. And the station “sound” just cannot be ignored. At this point we should have a much better picture of our present situation: why and how we got to where we are now.
• In the 40s and 50s, stations scrambled to control audio.
• In the 60s, everyone used the Audimax/Volumax system.
• In the 70s, DAPs dominated.
• In the 80s, it was Optimods.

It is no different today. Anyone who can afford a ten kilobuck (plus) box has an Omnia or an Orban digital processor. Many users are using a stock preset or something close to it. Back in 1992, Bob Orban declared that processing was a mature craft. What he meant was that in 1992 processing was a mature analog craft, because we were on the verge of something totally new: the digital revolution in processing. In Orban’s view, the distance between processing in 1992 and 2007 is far smaller than the distance between processing in 1960 and the processing in 1992. This was demonstrated by the number of stations that kept their analog systems (like the Optimod 8100) on the air until very recently because, as Orban relates: “they felt it was not until version 3.0 of the 8400 that DSP-based processing was clearly superior to the 8100 + XT2.” And here is the key point: Orban continued: “While I don’t happen to agree with that point of view, that’s OK – processing comes down to preference, and not everyone’s preference is the same as mine.” Preference. How each person hears and perceives audio. This will lead us to the next part of our discussion.
 

Go To Part #5

www.261.gr