Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site angband.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!mordor!angband!sjc From: sjc@angband.UUCP (Steve Correll) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: FM compression Message-ID: <23@angband.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 13:16:08 EDT Article-I.D.: angband.23 Posted: Fri Oct 5 13:16:08 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Oct-84 04:44:43 EDT Distribution: net Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL Lines: 23 > As one who listens to FM both at home on a quality (my opinion :-) system, > where I want wide dynamic range in the source material, and on a cheapy > headphone radio, where I want consistently high-level audio to drown out > the noise of the bus...I would think the answer would lie in putting the > compression in the RECEIVER, not in the transmitter. Unfortunately, when the compressor in the receiver boosts quiet passages, it will also boost noise and interference acquired during transmission. Instead, why not use a well-defined compression scheme at the transmitter? Then if you want wide dynamic range, you undo the compression at the receiver with complementary expansion; otherwise, you leave the signal compressed to drown out the noise in your listening environment. Stations which Dolby-encode their signal would produce roughly the desired effect, except that (a) Dolby compression is rather mild, and (b) Dolby compression is frequency-dependent, so therefore the stations mess around with the equalization in the transmitter. The unpopularity of the Dolby system among broadcasters suggests that they don't care much about our problems anyway. -- --Steve Correll sjc@s1-c.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjc