[HN Gopher] A top audio engineer explains NPR's signature sound ... ___________________________________________________________________ A top audio engineer explains NPR's signature sound (2015) Author : paulpauper Score : 219 points Date : 2021-04-16 11:39 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (current.org) (TXT) w3m dump (current.org) | madengr wrote: | Too bad NPR can't have decent programming. Nothing objective, | just feverish, leftist diatribe. I'd play a game with the kids on | the way to school in the morning; turn on NPR and count the | seconds until they say "Trump". | sangnoir wrote: | Shout-out to the audio/mixing engineers who handle NPR Tiny Desk | concerts. Every single concert I've ever listened to sounds | phenomenal: well-mixed with a surprising clarity and very little | noise, considering the venue and how crowded it gets "on stage" | with larger ensembles. | droptablemain wrote: | TLDR: high-pass filter and a legendary microphone. | wyldfire wrote: | Speaking of signature sounds -- many local radio stations | (including my local NPR station, KUT) seem to be using some new | technology. I frequently hear audio artifacts which sound like a | ~1.0-1.5s 'skip-back'. It's like what you imagine something might | do if it were streaming the audio and hit a gap/buffer underrun. | | This all started in the last 1-2 years. It's not extremely | infrequent, I hear these during prime driving times and probably | around once/week. I know for sure I have heard it on at least one | non-NPR FM station. I wonder anyone else has noticed the same in | other markets? | PragmaticPulp wrote: | If you have a digital radio receiver in your car, this could be | the radio switching between digital and analog. | pipe2devnull wrote: | I have had that happen but I think it was due to switching | between the HD and not HD radio signal. | wyldfire wrote: | Oh, of course! Yes, that's a great explanation. In that case | I wonder if there's latency in the signal -- like the | embedded HD content is out of phase with the analog content? | | So maybe the problem is really just a defect of my car's | radio when toggling. | pipe2devnull wrote: | I think there is a little bit. In my car the difference in | audio quality is really noticeable but if you don't notice | an improvement then you can usually turn the HD part off so | you don't have to deal with the frequent switching if it is | an issue. | jdofaz wrote: | The digital version is delayed, the station is supposed to | delay the analog feed an equal amount so that the | transition isn't noticeable. In the early HD radios it was | common for it to be way out of sync, but I haven't noticed | it much in a long while. | tshaddox wrote: | That was my immediate guess as well. I almost always | encounter this with music radio stations when I leave my | parking garage and the signal flips to HD. With music it's | very easy to hear the quality improvement at the same time as | the "skip," and in my car there's a little "HD" icon | somewhere on the radio interface. | sp332 wrote: | I heard this with Maine Public Radio a couple of years ago, but | actually I have not noticed it lately. | tyingq wrote: | _" We use a simple Neumann U87 microphone as the house-standard | microphone at all of our facilities. They're expensive, but | that's what we've used for years."_ | | Was curious. ~$3600 for the mic set. | busterarm wrote: | That's about normal at the high end...There's some $10-12k | microphones out there... | Wistar wrote: | The Telefunken ELA M 251, and the C12 and U47 tube mics come | to mind. As does the Brauner VM1S. | | And then there are the used vintage mics which can go for | $15k+. | | At the cheap but well-regarded end of things is the Stellar | X2 from TZ TechZone. | sharklazer wrote: | Sony C800, anyone? With parts for manufacture being hard to | source for Sony, I've seen these for nearly 20k, list price | (not sure if they actually get that much), second-hand. | | But then, professional equipment never had economies of | scale. | busterarm wrote: | The C800G is exactly what I was thinking of, but it's been | $11k for years. Although yes, it's rarely in stock. | sharklazer wrote: | From Sony, but check Reverb... Sony has been out of stock | for over a year now. The diaphragms are hard to | produce/source, so second hand just keeps going up | without Sony putting new units out. | wuliwong wrote: | Almost nobody uses mics like C800gs for podcasting and | radio, though. The Sony c800g is one of the best vocal mics | in the world, generally it will be found in high end | studios. A U87 _is_ very expensive for the purpose of radio | /podcasting. The RE20 and the Sure SM7B are very popular | for podcasting/radio and are around $400. NPR certainly | aren't the only people that use U87s for radio/podcasting | but they are in the minority. U87s are probably the most | popular studio mic in the world for professional studios | recording vocals but for this application it is accurate to | call a U87 expensive. | bndw wrote: | No surprise - in my experience the U87 is _the_ go-to choice | for a large diaphragm condenser in professional recording | environments. | wombatmobile wrote: | Do you need expensive microphones to make a quality recording? | | This week's video shows a side by side comparison between 3 | popular consumer and boutique microphones. | | Neumann U87, Rode NT1-A, and Fifine K670. | | Are they worth the price difference?? Let's find out! | | https://learnaudioengineering.com/u87-vs-nt1a/ | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | That was great! | | I'd say the $250 mic was the best value, but that German mic | was niiiice. If you can afford it, then it's probably the one | you want. | jaywalk wrote: | Drastic differences between the three! The Rode is certainly | acceptable for most circumstances, but the Fifine sounds like | absolute crap in my opinion. | hajile wrote: | Thriller (and tons of music before and after) was recorded on | the Shure SM7. You can buy that mic for $400. In fact, you've | seen this mic used by podcasters everywhere. | | The mic cost is almost irrelevant though. A good mic will | last decades unless abused. Let's say you want a variety of | sounds. You buy a bunch of instrument mics (probably $100 | each) and a few matched pairs of all the most popular vocal | mics (most of those will run 1-2k per pair). You'll probably | not spend over 20k in total. Over 20 years, that's only | $1,000 per year or less than $100 per month. In that same 20 | years, you will have upgraded your digital equipment several | times at an expense far greater than $1,000 per year | (upgrading your $3,500 macbook every 4 years is the same | amount of money). | | If you make your money with those mics, that cost is hardly | worth mentioning. It's like people complaining that ergonomic | keyboards cost $300. The keyboard will easily last a decade | or more (only $1-2 per month to save a lot of future pain). | In that same time, you'll probably spend 10k+ on other | equipment. Same thing with monitors where $1000 will far | outlast that same amount of money put into the computer | itself. | swyx wrote: | what are your thoughts on the Blue Yeti? I dont really like | it but it seems SUPER popular... | ZoomZoomZoom wrote: | It's ok but absolutely overhyped. | fumar wrote: | I have a yeti and XLR mics and lavalier mics. For ease of | use without hassle the Yeti is good but you must use the | right setting and account for gain. It picks up a decent | amount of ambient sound. That extra noise will muddy your | vocals. I've gone the route of a simple lavalier setup for | most of my video calls and presentations. | [deleted] | CPLX wrote: | It's fucking junk, sounds awful. | | For what it's worth I'm an audio engineering expert, | produced albums, broadcast stuff, and used to review | professional studio audio equipment for a living for a | national magazine. | | People like it because it's simple and it looks cool. | | If you want something that has the same basic usability, ie | plugs directly into USB and is really easy to use with | computer audio, buy the Apogee Mic Plus. | | I recently experimented with pretty much everything in this | category and was very happy with this model, bought a dozen | of them for use in a virtual conference series, where I | wanted something I could send to non-technical people who'd | never be able to navigate a pro audio interface. I've been | very happy with it so far. | hajile wrote: | I own a yeti (and a yeti pro) among quite a few other mics. | | It's actively _bad_ for most people for one reason: | capacitive mics pick up everything. | | If your room isn't soundproofed, it will be very hard to | keep noise out of your recording. Dynamic mics are much | less sensitive in this regard. | | I would instead recommend a Samson 2Qu or Audio Technica | ATR2100-USB on the low end ($70-100) or the Shure MV7 | ($250) on the high end for plug-n-play mics. | | If you want to move into a cheap audio interface (eg, | Focusrite Scarlett Solo + cloudlifter), I'd recommend | either the Shure SM7b or the ElectroVoice re20 on the | higher end and the Shure sm57 on the cheaper end (good | enough for the president to use for the last 40-ish years). | CharlesW wrote: | > _It 's actively bad for most people for one reason: | capacitive mics pick up everything._ | | This is a myth that's popular with podcasters. If you get | as close to a condenser mic as you _must_ with a less- | sensitive dynamic mic* and crank down the gain | accordingly, you 'll find that condenser mics don't | magically capture more ambient noise than than dynamic | mics. | | * Using a fist as a measure, your mouth should be between | 1-2 fists away from the mic. | [deleted] | [deleted] | eropple wrote: | The Yeti is popular because it's a USB microphone and it | got in early. It's not a bad microphone (at all, somebody | telling you it is wants to sell you something) but it's | generally misapplied in most settings where it finds | itself. | | For simple spoken-word stuff like conferences or streams or | whatever, something like a Samson Q2U or an | AT2005USB/ATR2100 are less sensitive to unwanted noise and | easier for an untrained user to get a good sound out of, | while moving into the XLR space gets you access to better | dynamic microphones and also some pretty reasonably priced | condensers that do quite well (though there's some up-front | investment in the audio hardware, of course). | mrob wrote: | I don't recommend listening to this comparison because the | U87 is high-pass filtered and the other two are not. It makes | the U87 sound very bad IMO. | auiya wrote: | The problem isn't the mic though, it's that in the earlier days | of radio there was a trend towards boosting the bass | artificially in the microphones to make the host sound more | authoritative. Howard Stern is BIG time guilty of this. NPR | doesn't do this, and cuts the bass picked up by the full-range | mics using a channel EQ (or mic built-in) to eliminate plosives | rather than employ lots of pop screens and boosting the bass. | Using a full-range mic for vocals means ultra low-end is | preserved, and that's not always desired for replicating the | human voice accurately. This is also how most vocals in music | are treated, there's no reason for all that low-end mud, so | they're high-pass filtered heavily as a matter of course before | the rest of the vocal effects chain is applied. Pop vocals in | particular are way thinner than people realize. | | As far as mics go, if you don't want to pay thousands for a | Neumann, the Austrian Audio OC18 is a fantastic mic with a | similarly flat response and has a 3-way switch for different | levels of high-pass filtering before the signal even leaves the | mic. It's fast becoming my favorite mic to use in the studio. | adrianmonk wrote: | > _boosting the bass artificially_ | | To clarify a bit, I think that, by "artificial", you mean the | boost does not correspond to how the human voice actually | sounds, which is true. | | But in another sense, it's not artificial. It's a natural | side effect of the physics of how microphones work. In | building microphones to be directional (favor sounds from, | say, in front), they've also made it where the amount of bass | picked up is heightened when the mic is very close. | | So NPR is _artificially_ (with a high-pass filter) removing a | _natural_ side-effect (of directional mics) to avoid getting | _artificial_ -sounding boomy bass. | | Also, this is one of those accidental invention things where | what was originally a side effect has turned into a valued, | essential feature. Like guitar amp distortion is part of the | electric guitar sound. Or like how resonator guitars (Dobro, | National) were invented to be louder but now people like the | tone. | laurent92 wrote: | There could also be a cultural aspect of this. In English, | the lower you speak, the more respectable you are. It is | borderline ridiculous when you listen as a foreigner (when | voices are cutting off or rattling), until I learnt how to | use it myself ;) Anyway, I speak with much higher pitch in | French, and perhaps the bass mic is important for English | speakers, but wouldn't have had such an effect on European | radios, where, maybe in Spanish, high frequencies would be | important because the faster you speak, the more | interesting you are? Consonants are much more important in | latin languages. | sh1mmer wrote: | > So NPR is artificially (with a high-pass filter) removing | a natural side-effect (of directional mics) to avoid | getting artificial-sounding boomy bass. | | He says later on in the article that they try and get | people in the studio to not talk directly into the mic but | across it. So in some ways they are trying to correct for | the issues caused by strong directionality before they get | to artificial things like signal filters. | PaulHoule wrote: | That (talking across) was what clicked for me. They are | in a controlled reverbance room and that's worth a lot | too. | | It is so clear that getting a clean analog signal up | front is worth a lot. | CPLX wrote: | You can also just go for the similar Neumann's that are lower | down in their line. I have a TLM 103 and recommend it highly, | although it doesn't have the high-pass switch so you'd want | to do that via software or preamp. | david422 wrote: | Any reason why this isn't just done in software rather than | hardware? Is it just more setup when it's easier if it's a | hardware switch. | | The article just said it's not left up to the studio. | kitotik wrote: | Latency is still a problem with audio software. | spoonjim wrote: | You can boost your gain a lot higher if you throw out the | bass early in the signal chain and preserve a much higher | S/N ratio. | iamsomewalrus wrote: | Flippantly, because hardware is cool! | | Plugins - software for audio programs - are available but | audio engineers are famously persnickety. | bryzaguy wrote: | Low frequencies carry an awful lot of energy and you will | get maximum dynamic range out of a mic by close-micing but | HPF'ing off the lows early in the chain. Many condensers | have little preamps inside them, and the HPF may be placed | before this pre giving it effectively a lot more headroom. | raverbashing wrote: | Software? | | Software pipelines only began to get into radio some 20/25 | years ago. NPR started in 71 | | Also software can't do magic (and you aren't processing | each microphone digitally), you want to be your signal to | be as best as it can as close to the source as you can make | it to be. | auiya wrote: | Reliability. Purpose-built hardware switches don't crash, | ever. | macinjosh wrote: | Tell that to a roadie. Hardware fails all the time. | treeman79 wrote: | Old Steven king book. On a group traveling to a rain | forest. | | They gave all the equipment to a pack of monkeys for the | night. Anything still working in the morning was | certified as reliable. | dragonwriter wrote: | I may be wrong (its been a long time since I read it, and | it may be just something that fits really well | thematically with the book but wasn't actually in it), | but I think that was Michael Crichton's _Congo_ , not a | Steven King book. | dredmorbius wrote: | The original chaos monkeys? | [deleted] | jancsika wrote: | > Pop vocals in particular are way thinner than people | realize. | | Thanks to near constant use of auto-tune I think most people | realize pop vocals are thin. | | Edit: clarification to remove accidental contradiction. I | initially ended with "... I think most people realize that," | which would have essentially translated to, "Most people | realize that pop vocals are thinner than most people | realize." | auiya wrote: | Pitch correction doesn't thin vocals when used correctly. | imwillofficial wrote: | I read this in T-pain's voice. Auto tune does get abused, | doesn't it? | swyx wrote: | for what its worth T-pain has pretty conclusively proved | that he didn't need autotune, he just used it as a | gimmick to stand out: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc | ehnto wrote: | Quite relevantly, his NPR tiny desk concert was a | fantastic example of his musical range and his vocal | talent. He is an excellent musician. | andrewzah wrote: | Autotune and melodyne are just standard now. Good usage | is not really detectable. What people forget to note is | that you still need to know how to sing in the first | place. Autotune plugins can only do so much... | | These plugins really exist to save time for large | studios, not make bad musicians better. Time is money for | studios, so they don't want to waste it on multiple | retakes when someone can be close enough to make small | fixes with melodyne. For session work, market effects | still pressure people to, well, not make mistakes like | that. A great singer is still going to be in higher | demand than a decent one, because then the studios don't | have to spend much time at all fixing their vocals. | | Also, -noticeable- autotune can be desired. It's a | musical choice. In that sense it's no different than | using a vocoder, etc. I personally do not like it but | that's the beauty of music; there's something for | everyone. | ddingus wrote: | It is totally detectable, unless it truly is a one off | tweak. But that is almost never what happens. Maybe a | great vocal will get a tweak to save otherwise great | take, and that is fine. Good thing. | | But then the whole production sees similar things all | over the place and it gets cleaned right up technically. | Time, levels, the works right? | | And the energy is diminished, could be lost. | | Like fashion, this will all cycle in and out. Young | people hear the humanity in music made prior to these and | other tools and it appeals. | | Little things, like a change in tempo, small vocal | errors, inconsistency, all add up in a track. | | I bet some time from now, could be as little as a decade, | maybe two, we will look back at all this and chuckle. | | Like you say, there is nothing technically wrong with any | of this tech. And it could all be used very differently | from how it is today too. | | Recently, I have been going back through great live | shows. Fantastic! And I still get that tingle from the | realization someone delivered it live, to a crowd. And | yeah, not so perfect, but oh so very human too. | andrewzah wrote: | "It is totally detectable." | | Good application of it is not, no. When we hear obvious | autotune vocals, it's a deliberate aesthetic choice. | | I believe what you're talking about is how modern | production is about producing "perfect" song recordings, | and mapping everything to a click track/beat grid. Now | that is totally noticeable compared to music made a few | decades ago. I do agree that it makes music sound | sterile. This is separate to autotune/melodyne being | used. | | "I bet some time from now, could be as little as a | decade, maybe two, we will look back at all this and | chuckle." | | Maybe the main industry studios will, but music in | general isn't determined by what those folks are doing. | There are more indie publishers than ever, and so on. | ddingus wrote: | I made an edit, because I do agree with you. | | And yes! The indies are all over the place. Love it. | MAGZine wrote: | I used to not like autotune at all in music, but then I | think I heard an interview with Grimes (?) who basically | said (paraphrasing) "oh, I love autotune. Yes it's | artificial and detectable, BUT it brings the vocals even | closer to the music, which makes a more powerful | impression. | | Ever since then, it's not bothered me nearly so much when | the vocals are tuned. The track hits harder. Yes: it's | true the voice loses some of it's natural beauty, but in | turn, you get music and voice that follow perfectly. | xxpor wrote: | I think the big difference there is trying to use it to | just hide imperfections vs. consciously making it a | conspicuous part of the music. For someone like Grimes, | adding in blatantly artificial manipulation fits in | perfectly with the rest of her aesthetic. | bwanab wrote: | A short, but hopefully relevant anecdote: I play the sax. A | musician friend called me last summer to get me to do a part on | a new song he'd produced. Since it was during the summer surge | I said I'd do it at home and send him the part, but he | mentioned he had a Neumann mic for me to record with. I was | curious, so I packed up and went to his place which he'd set up | largely outside. I played my parts, then went home. When he | sent me the result I was floored! I've never sounded so good - | seriously. I asked him what plugins he'd used and he'd just | added a touch of reverb, but nothing else. It was all me and | the Neumann mic. Those things really do have a magic quality | about them. There's a reason people are willing to pay more | than the cost of my sax for one. | snypher wrote: | Does anyone know what the cage-like section on the bottom of | the U87 is for? Neumann themselves state that the U87 'looks | like a studio mic'. | scolby33 wrote: | It's a shock mount (probably [1]), meant to reduce noise | transmitted from the table or the boom arm or whatever the | microphone is attached to. | | [1] https://en-de.neumann.com/ea-87 | chuchurocka wrote: | It's a shock mount system. Suspends the mic from any external | vibrations | Centigonal wrote: | Do you mean the shock mount? | | It's designed to hold the mic and avoid transmitting | vibrations from the mic stand (caused by moving or jostling | the stand) to the mic. | | https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/dwEAAOSwg0deXHFG/s-l640.jpg | tiniuclx wrote: | That's a shock mount - it prevents vibration on the mic stand | from being picked up by the microphone. | kazinator wrote: | there are mic designs that reduce proximity effect, like the | classic Shure SM-54. | | http://www.coutant.org/shursm54/index.html | tootie wrote: | Pet peeve, but here's a great segment on what is and isn't | actually NPR: | https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/not-npr | | I should say, the shows mentioned in this article are actually | produced by NPR but most of what you hear on a given public radio | station isn't. And also, NPR doesn't control the broadcast. | jmd509 wrote: | My notes (tl;dr) from the article below. | | For anyone even vaguely familiar with audio engineering and | recording, these tactics are not profound. Not a bad thing | because in the end, less is more. | | Worth mentioning that a good mic is arguably the 20% input that | contributes to 80%+ of the output/audio quality, as supported by | the article. | | #6 is really the only non-obvious point. Apparently this is a | major subject of debate. | | 1.) If you can afford it, use the Neumann U87 mic (~$3.5k) | | 2.) High pass filter (~250hz) on the vocal chain | | 3.) To avoid plosives, don't speak head-on into the mic. Speak | off the side, on a diagonal. Use a pop filter. | | 4.) Design your studio to minimize reverberation. Make sure the | recording space is isolated and there "aren't a lot of solid | walls." Absorb sound with baffles, sound panels, etc. | Counterintuitively, a larger room with more diffusion is better | than the opposite. | | 5.) Minimize ambient sound. Your mic will pick up everything from | fans to CPUs to electronic interference off computer screens. | This noise will muddy up the recording. | | 6.) Minimize processing or compression of the signal before | streaming, or in the case of radio, sending to the satellite. | | Edit: for clarity | archontes wrote: | That'd be a high pass filter, right? | jmd509 wrote: | Thank you for pointing that out - have edited. Wrote a bit | too hastily there! | maroonblazer wrote: | 250Hz high pass seems too high for male voices in the baritone | or bass range. And depending on whether the female in question | is more of an alto vs soprano 250Hz might still be too high. | andrewzah wrote: | It depends on how close the speaker is. Getting that close | creates a large proximity effect. The rolloff filter starts | at 1k actually but is around -10db at 150hz [0]. I wouldn't | use it unless one is close to eating the microphone. | | [0]: (Page 4) | https://media.sweetwater.com/store/media/u87ai_u87.pdf | KozmoNau7 wrote: | The cheap Behringer mixer I use for voice chat, karaoke and | so on has a selectable 80Hz high-pass filter, I can't | remember ever switching it off on the vocal channels, except | to parody that Howard Stern-esque huge bottom end with heavy | compression radio host thing. | | Using a decent microphone (AKG D5 in my case) and a little | bit of tweaking (just a low cut and some compression is a | good start) instantly puts your sound quality in voice chats | so far above everyone else using cheap headsets or their | laptops' built-in mics. | | Anecdotally I've found that sounding more authoritative makes | people listen a lot more to what you say, instead of zoning | out. | jancsika wrote: | > Worth mentioning that a good mic is arguably the 20% factor | that contributes to 80%+ of the audio quality, as supported by | the article. | | I'm suspicious when percentages that don't have to add up to | 100% add up to 100%. | jontutcher wrote: | For reference, most/all BBC radio stations use AKG C414s (https | ://www.akg.com/Microphones/Condenser%20Microphones/C414...) of | various vintages. They sound fantastic and cost ~$700, rather | than $3.5k. | | BBC Radio 3 uses no dynamic range compression, so might be most | comparable to NPR (although it's likely that each local station | applies a ton of compression before the signal hits the air). | | Most (other) radio stations apply copious amounts of multiband | dynamic range compression on their output - with the nickname | of "sausage-making", since the process turns waveforms that | look like music into waveforms that look like sausages. In the | FM days, louder sounding stations were associated with better | signals, so got bigger market share... | jcims wrote: | NPR's Tiny Desk concerts (when they were actually at NPR) | regularly blow me away with the production quality. They are so | good at it despite all the wonky setups that come through. If you | dig around in the comments you'll see my handle in there fawning | over them regularly lol. | polytely wrote: | The dude in charge of the Tiny Desk Recording is Josh Rogosin, | he made a couple of videos about the process. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e07bI5rz6FY | | Edit: this is one of my favourite tiny desk concerts, it sounds | so good on headphones | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XlUL6sRow | jcims wrote: | Couple more sweet mixes: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4oFu4BtQ8 (Roots. The brass | mix gives me goosebumps lol) | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFycqnOpifQ (Nickel Creek. If | there really is only one mic someone has sold their soul. The | sound stage is perfect.) | polytely wrote: | Chris Thile is such a genius, Goat Rodeo (Chris Thile, | Edgar Meyer, Stuart Duncan, Yo-Yo Ma) is one of my | favourite things in the world https://youtu.be/O7EcT5YzKhQ | crispyambulance wrote: | Not exactly Tiny Desk Concert, but close enough, my fave was | an appearance by Steven Merritt (of the Magnetic Fields). | This NPR series was called "Project Song"-- the challenge was | to write and produce a song in two days. | | https://www.npr.org/2007/11/04/15859351/stephin-merritt- | two-... | tmountain wrote: | Thanks for that, here's one of my favorites. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7My5IpEzVM&ab_channel=NPRMu. | .. | tecleandor wrote: | Wow, the comment section is quite a trip. | asimpletune wrote: | Can't tell if it's performance art or not | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | People talk about how bad reddit comments are... | | But the average comment section of a news article or blog is so | much worse. It has the insanity of 4chan, but with better | grammar. | jpm_sd wrote: | You're not kidding. Those people are insane. | 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: | Audiophiles are a different breed. | markjgx wrote: | The article is coincidentally written by Adam Regusa, my favorite | food Youtuber. | jpm_sd wrote: | Adam Ragusea also did all the music and interstitials for one | of my favorite (very silly) podcasts: | | https://maximumfun.org/podcasts/greatest-generation/ | | So far, the hosts have done a complete re-watch of TNG and DS9. | Just started Voyager recently. | newsbinator wrote: | I love the podcast. I have Pocket Casts set to skip the first | 7 minutes or so, while they're opening trading cards they | bought on eBay and talking about non-Star Trek things. | | Then when they start talking about the episode it's fun and | nostalgic, and they make astute observations that I haven't | heard elsewhere. | sxates wrote: | Those intros are where a lot of the recurring inside jokes | originate, don't skip them! | 1915cb1f wrote: | Huh, I never knew that he was also a writer/journalist. Come to | think of it, that explains why he includes so many interview | segments in his video. Thanks for pointing that out! | calmoo wrote: | Yeah it definitely shines in his videos - he was a Professor | of Journalism before switching to YT full time. | zwog wrote: | If bass roll-off is so important, couldn't it just be implemented | further down the signal chain? | | I mean, after all it's a low-cut filter, isn't it? | radiowave wrote: | Yes, it can be. The reason it's built in to the mic is to | protect the mic's output transformer from distorting when | recording louder sounds. Most newer/cheaper designs of | condenser mic use solid state outputs (unless they're | deliberately apeing a classic design) which typically are less | easily saturated by loud bass sounds. | | I'd guess NPR's view is along the lines that, well, the | filter's already there, and we like the way it sounds, so we | keep using it. | myself248 wrote: | It could, but the results might not be what you expect. | | Maybe you want to preserve the bass of interstitial music or | program audio jingles or environmental effects or something. | Doing the processing after the mixing means it affects the | whole mix. Doing it at the input means you can tailor each | element. | | Worse, because bass has an outsize effect on the total energy | in an audio signal, if there's any sort of dynamic range | compression while the bass is still included, the presence of | the bass triggers that compression to happen. Later on when the | bass is removed, the remaining audio has inexplicable | fluctuations in its volume, which can sound super | uncomfortable. | | This "program level bouncing around in response to a signal | which is not part of the program audio" effect can also come | from side-chain compression, and arguably filtering after | compressing may be a form thereof. Once in a while it's done to | great artistic effect in music, but in talk settings it's | almost always horrible and disorienting. | jefurii wrote: | Running or splashing water has a particular sound in NPR on- | location segments. I wish they'd talk about how they did that. | andy_ppp wrote: | I keep wondering why no-one has trained a CNN to turn low quality | audio into crisp NPR sounding audio (say). Surely it's even | fairly easy to create test data for such things? | andrewzah wrote: | Not everything is magically fixable. That would involve | creating elements that didn't exist at recording time or were | removed by an encoder. | andy_ppp wrote: | With enough training data I'm sure it can be done... I've | seen CNNs that fill in 3D scenes and animate them from two | images. I would _guess_ this was a simpler problem? | andrewzah wrote: | Well, one thing to note is that humans spend more time | processing audio than video. Bad audio is immediately | noticeable and aggravating, compared to spotty video with | clear audio. | | I -guess- CNNs can look at e.g. reduced frequency range | recordings (like phone calls), and attempt to reconstruct | them. However this seems like an arduous mountain to climb, | as people's voices are unique. So are their environments | and signal chains. I really doubt that something that | generalized would work very well at reconstructing a | specific person's voice and recording. | | This also gets into the problem that it would be | constructing a new reality, not recreating it. | andy_ppp wrote: | Yes, you're probably right - I hadn't thought that the | voice + noise is going to be one thing, extracting just | the noise will be difficult, unique and maybe not | trainable at all. | | I have thought about the constructing a new reality thing | - I wouldn't be surprised if models ended up being | trained to misspeak words which could get confusing... | notagoodidea wrote: | I think the first step would be to be able to convert a lossy | format as MP3 or ogg to a lossless format as FLAC or Wav. Being | able to retrieve close in off lost data from lossy compression | would be impressive. | andrewzah wrote: | MP3s generally have a shelf around 16-18khz. The rest of the | audible spectrum data is impossible to retrieve if it doesn't | exist. This is why transcoding from a lossy->lossless format | is a bad idea. | notagoodidea wrote: | Yes, I know and that's what would be more impressive for me | to see a ML/Algo that could recreate close enough data | distribution from lossy to lossless. Not exact | reconstruction but close enough in the possible area (so < | 16-18kHz). It may or may not be possible but it is more | akin to take the inverse of the model of degradation of MP3 | (it could be totally impossible). | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Sounds like you're describing DLSS [0], but for audio. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning_super_sam | pling | k2enemy wrote: | I know some people love the NPR sound and find it intimate and | comforting, but I often have to turn it off because the mouth and | saliva noises drive me crazy. Misophonia is not fun! | Applejinx wrote: | It's a lot worse with tiny headset mics. Large diaphragm | condensers like the Neumann will give you that level of detail, | but some of the tiny headset mics HYPE that level of detail | unbearably. The Neumanns will at least fail to exaggerate what | is already unbearable for you :) | whitehouse3 wrote: | This became worse during COVID as many of the presenters work | from home and aren't as savvy with their momentary mute. Lots | of swallowing, coughing, and nose whistling. Particularly | during Morning Edition. | justaman wrote: | I don't know who it is, but one person in particular seems to | have a retainer and it is unbearable. Every time they talk | about "tthiss" or "thsat". | jhpankow wrote: | If it is a female my misophonia suggests it is Mary Louise | Kelly. I've gotten used to it. There is also a male voice on | one of the weekend shows that might be who you're describing. | | I wrote in to a cable TV show a decade ago to call out the | nose hair whistling and mouth sounds. They never replied to | me, but they rolled off the highs for the remainder of the | shows. | cainxinth wrote: | There was one NPR broadcaster who used to read the news on | weekend mornings for my local station (WHYY), I forget her | name, and I haven't heard her in a while thankfully, but | she literally whispered the news. | | It was like someone I don't know, whispering sweet, | unsolicited nothings in my ear. Felt uncomfortably intimate | in a way I hated. I was always like, "Lady, I don't know | you like that, so cut it out." | jhpankow wrote: | Years ago when I moved for my first job out of school I | decided to set my clock radio to the local NPR station | (KERA Dallas) to wake up to the news. I had to switch to | a hard rock station because I'd fall back asleep to their | soft voices. | joezydeco wrote: | The amount of vocal fry on NPR has become as bad as Mary | Louise Kelly's dry mouth clicking. And once you hear it, | you can't unhear it. | dannyw wrote: | Reminds me of ASMR. | whitehouse3 wrote: | This is especially notable with Peter Overby. Excellent | journalist and presenter, though. | ericcholis wrote: | I was always impressed with how crisp remote guests or hosts | often sound. Rather than sounding like they've called in, they | sound like they're in-studio. Not terribly difficult to achieve, | the remote person likely has a good audio setup and sends that | recording to the engineer to mix together. Still, a nice touch. | dylan604 wrote: | A lot of times, the remote guest visits an NPR station near | them rather than visiting the location the show is being | recorded. | whitehouse3 wrote: | In my experience the hardest part of this is syncing the remote | audio files. For T>30 minutes the drift can be substantial. | mixedCase wrote: | Huh, I've consciously thought in the past of this as an | outsider and concluded that by now it's a common enough task | so of course they must've had an algorithm for doing it | automatically. | | Is there really nothing coming close to that? | andrewzah wrote: | As someone who worked as an audio engineer, solving | problems before they can occur saves so much time and | headache. There's no reason to faff about with software or | complexity-inducing algorithms when the whole problem can | be fixed by toggling one switch. | | Technically you could accomplish the same thing by applying | a parametric eq to the master buss, but then you're no | longer software agnostic. | | It's like photography; sure one can post-process photos in | photoshop. But getting everything right before taking the | picture, at a hardware level, simplifies things for | everyone involved. | InitialLastName wrote: | There are plugins for different scenarios, but it turns | into one of those problems where hearing and correcting | issues is much easier for humans than computers. The tools | available make it easier to fix problems, but it still | takes a recording engineer to spot-check. | surement wrote: | unless they used a different sample rate, why would there be | a drift? | ZoomZoomZoom wrote: | The clock drifts. Something needs to count those seconds. | Even when the drift is small, phasing distortions become | pretty obvious on lengthy recordings. | InitialLastName wrote: | Sample rates in audio hardware aren't like programming | constants, where they're the same for everybody. Over 30 | minutes, a 0.05% sample rate error gets you 1s of drift | over the recording. As a reference, USB 2.0 has a 0.25% | frequency tolerance (and is used to clock many audio | devices). | mrtesthah wrote: | Cheap quartz clocks in computers and some USB ADCs | especially are prone to slightly changing their rates | depending on temperature. So the sample rates can differ | relative to each other. | bscphil wrote: | And even if they had, there should not be any trouble | resampling them into the correct rate for the project. | ralmeida wrote: | Maybe actual clock differences? Not sure if that's the | case, but in audio engineering, a separate clock may be | used to keep all devices involved in-sync (many pro-level | audio devices have a "clock" input for this very reason). | moftz wrote: | In RF engineering, it's typical to have all of your | equipment referencing the same 10MHz clock (or a 1 pulse | per second or IRIG-B). If I don't have a GPS receiver or | a rubidium source, then I'll just pick the newest, most | expensive piece of equipment with a built-in reference | clock and fan it out to the rest of the equipment on the | bench. Some portable spectrum analyzers have built-in GPS | receivers so even out in the field you know you have a | good reference. | EvanAnderson wrote: | I've wondered about this in long-form talk podcasts I listen | to. I always just assumed there were audio file formats that | included timecode. | FiatLuxDave wrote: | Do you have any insights you can offer on how best to do | this? I have to deal with drift issues on signal processing | of .wav files, and I have always used a marker pulse every so | often. | | Is there a better way? | bogomipz wrote: | Interestingly one of the most enduring shows on NPR is Fresh | Air with Terry Gross and she traditionally has not had her | guests in the studio with her over her 40 plus years hosting | the show. She has even spoken about how she's been able to use | this to her advantage. This following is quick read on this: | | https://www.inquirer.com/philly/entertainment/WHYY-NPR-Terry... | myself248 wrote: | ISDN. | | This is one of the last, best uses of ISDN. Guaranteed latency, | ultra low jitter, and plenty of high-quality hardware purpose- | built for getting the best possible studio audio over 2 bearer | channels worth of capacity. | bogomipz wrote: | Indeed, this was also the original use case of ISDN before | the internet. | [deleted] | user3939382 wrote: | I chuckled at the headline because NPR's audio is a long-running | inside joke in my family, particularly that you can so often hear | what we call the "mouth noises" of the host (lip smacking, etc). | bane wrote: | The bass roll-off is an important factor. If you listen to your | other top-40 radio stations, the DJs sound like they are | pronouncing the hits from the top of Mount Olympus, with thundery | basses and reverb designed to shake you awake and make you pay | attention. It's frankly exhausting to listen to, and NPR's | attention to this small thing makes it possible to listen to | people talking for hours on end. | golergka wrote: | Top-40 audio engineers are not wrong. Just as you wouldn't | format long walls of text and single short phrases the same way | in typography, you wouldn't mix these two the same way. | dctoedt wrote: | > _Just as you wouldn 't format long walls of text and single | short phrases the same way in typography_ | | Topic drift: I hammer on my students that contracts are | _much_ more readable if done in short, _single-subject_ | paragraphs _without_ long wall-of-words passages. | golergka wrote: | I always thought that legal language looks like C code that | heavily relies on macros after it has been through a | preprocessor. | | Don't lawyers have effective ways to include and reference | things, create standard definitions and procedures without | pasting the same stuff everywhere? | dctoedt wrote: | > _Don 't lawyers have effective ways to include and | reference things, create standard definitions and | procedures without pasting the same stuff everywhere?_ | | In some fields, yes -- but as a class, lawyers: (A) | notoriously prefer reinventing the wheel, and (B) | sometimes could be suspected of hoping that the MEGO | Factor -- Mine Eyes Glaze Over -- will cause the other | side's contract-draft reviewer to overlook something that | the drafter buried in a long, wall-of-words provision. I | see that happen pretty regularly. | | (In the 1990s I initiated and headed up a project for the | American Bar Association Section of IP Law to try to | standardize the _wording_ of various building-block | clauses for software license agreements. [0] The chief IP | counsel of a Fortune X company [X being a very-low | number], whom I knew pretty well from the Section, said | he was opposed to having any kind of standardized | language because, he said (paraphrasing), "I want to be | free to be an asshole.") | | [0] https://www.oncontracts.com/docs/Rutgers-MSLP- | Precursor-to-G... | xxpor wrote: | >Don't lawyers have effective ways to include and | reference things, create standard definitions and | procedures without pasting the same stuff everywhere? | | That could actually turn out to be worse. Take a look at | a lot of federal bills. They're written like: | | 'In 8 USC 552(b)(ii) strike the word "foo" and insert | "bar baz"' | | You then have to go cross reference everything for every | line. It's a nightmare. If the bill was written in a | computer readable diff format instead, that could be | better. | ruairidhwm wrote: | You wouldn't believe the lack of efficiency in law firms | (much of the cost of which is passed to clients). When I | tried selling SAAS to law firms, there was a degree of | resistance because efficiency threatens the charge by the | unit model. | | I no longer work in law ;) | vagrantJin wrote: | Aren't some contracts designed to not be readable with long | drawn out passages? | dctoedt wrote: | > _Aren 't some contracts designed to not be readable | with long drawn out passages?_ | | From the oleaginous Francis Urquhart in the wonderful | original (British) version of House of Cards: " _You_ | might think that. _I_ couldn 't possibly comment." [0] | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJFiByfiRTA | swivelmaster wrote: | It's also the extremely heavy compression that radio stations | use in order to KEEP EVERYTHING SOUNDING AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE | ALL OF THE TIME | jaywalk wrote: | The DJ's voice has to match with what they're talking over. | NPR's sound would be ridiculous talking over the intro of a Top | 40 song. | namdnay wrote: | "Welcome to K-Billy's Super Sounds of the Seventies weekend" ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-16 22:00 UTC)