On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:30 AM, skipp025 wrote: > Hi Nate, > > > > re: An advocate for a little audio compression. > > > Nate Duehr <n...@...> wrote: > > You're a brave man to say it, Skipp. > > > Here's my problem with it. Let's just say there's a very > > large linked repeater system that decided MANY years ago > > that they could "fix" the incoming audio from their IRLP > > link from BADLY CONFIGURED IRLP NODES by adding a commercial > > compressor-limiter in-line. > > Depends on what's coming out of the IRLP source... it's not > the job of a limiter/compressor to improve already over crunched > bad audio. My "advocate for a little audio compression" > statement is meant to deal with helping soft talking, non > booming (higher pitch) voice types. The specific case I > referenced was a simple repeater with one half-duplex link > radio. >
Understand. They were RAISING low-level nodes that hadn't bothered to set their audio properly. Problem was, good sounding, higher level nodes were obviously having some horrible effect on their compressor/ limiter they weren't really aware of, since they had so many bad- sounding ones calling them regularly. :-) > > Hey guess what folks. The audio left here JUST FINE... > > someone on that end decided to muck around with it. Not > > much I can do about that. > > If you were close to them... you could offer to have a look > at the levels and crank the controls back down to a more > realistic value. But when things progress to this level... you > very often have to deal with some type of control freak who's > going to crank the knob back up after you and Elvis have left > the building. > They were thousands of miles away... I decided it wasn't my problem. :-) > > Do I realize that the vast majority of folks setting up IRLP > > nodes don't bother setting levels CORRECTLY to a network > > standard? Oh heck, yes. I rant about that at least once > > a year on the IRLP list... to mostly deaf ears. > > A lot of Amateurs lack the resources of a decent Communications > Service Monitor, some experience or a knowledgeable friend offering > to help. The human ear is not a linear device so most cases > of setting levels by perceived audio value are not good. > Yeah, understand. I always offer to help with the test gear if I'm "in range" of a reasonable drive, and not too busy. > I think you're focused on the wrong issue... I run Multi-Hub > and Chained Repeater Links with well thought out audio levels > and they do include a very modest amount of limiting type > compression... and they sound great. You probably need to vent > a stronger opinion against bad audio level choices made by the > over casual repeater system/equipment owner/operator(s). > LOL... Yeah, I doubt any systems you're engineering are "casually engineered". LOL! :-) > I'd like to say I've done a lot of the proper homework... and > I suspect few users can tell the brand name of the majority > of our repeaters from the on-air audio. And there's a fairly > large mix of many different equipment brands... > You have, I'm sure. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
