Broadcast Quality -- what's your definition?

[MLaskow]

Hi all,

 

I've been getting lots of emails lately asking me to define what Broadcast Quality means. I'm curious to hear from you as to what you think it means. Post 'em up!

 

thanks,

Michael

[Dancebass]

Just means it's been mastered. To me anyway.

[daddymack]

Well, pretty much yes, mastered, to a known standard. Really, it has to sound good...no pop/hiss/drop-out etc. Considering how crappy MP3s sound, the term is pretty much generic now. The FCC no longer controls 'content', only the technical spectrum of the broadcasters.

 

In some parts of the EU, Canada, Australia, China, India, and IIRC S. Africa, they have the DAB (-/+) standards. that was originally 128kbit/s, not up to our FM stereo 'standard', and below typical CD audio(192kbit/s)...this was revised, and I am not sure where the specs went beyond the initial agreement.

[BlueStrat]

What they said. I've heard some of my studio recorded and mastered songs on the radio on local stations (weird feeling!) and it stacks up pretty good with label stuff. My live album, not so much.

 

Some local guys get airplay on local programs and their recordings don't sound good at all on the radio.

[restart]

 

Some local guys get airplay on local programs and their recordings don't sound good at all on the radio.

 

 

Crap mastering. Good mastering (let alone a good mix) almost qualifies as an art all its own. Analog radio severely compresses audio. If your mastering engineer/producer did not account for this in the final master, you'll wind up with a product that only sounds good on certain audio equipment as opposed to sounding good on a wide variety of audio equipment.

 

I hear tons of poorly recorded material, more than back in the analog days. Analog was more forgiving to human error and yes, laziness. Digital exposes all the flaws and laziness, in audio and visual mediums.

[BlueStrat]

 

Crap mastering. Good mastering (let alone a good mix) almost qualifies as an art all its own. Analog radio severely compresses audio. If your mastering engineer/producer did not account for this in the final master, you'll wind up with a product that only sounds good on certain audio equipment as opposed to sounding good on a wide variety of audio equipment. I hear tons of poorly recorded material, more than back in the analog days. Analog was more forgiving to human error and yes, laziness. Digital exposes all the flaws and laziness, in audio and visual mediums.

 

 

 

Agree.

When I did my studio CDs, we took at least as long to mix as we did to track-we would do a mix, listen to it, then burn it onto a DR, and listen to it in a home stereo, a boom box, and go out to the car and listen on a car stereo. Then make some changes, and repeat. We spent an average of 4-5 hours a song to get a mix I was happy with. It took a long time but was well worth it. Then we sent it off to be mastered at a lab that does nothing else.

[Poker99]

 

Agree. When I did my studio CDs, we took at least as long to mix as we did to track-we would do a mix, listen to it, then burn it onto a DR, and listen to it in a home stereo, a boom box, and go out to the car and listen on a car stereo. Then make some changes, and repeat. We spent an average of 4-5 hours a song to get a mix I was happy with. It took a long time but was well worth it. Then we sent it off to be mastered at a lab that does nothing else.

 

 

Yeah but sometimes the mastering changes your mix a bit.

 

I got my last mastering corrected a few times...

[Johnny-Boy]

The definition of broadcast quality changes with the listener. I think most of us can tell when a music track isn't broadcast quality, but difficult when it lies on the gray line.

[BlueStrat]

Yeah but sometimes the mastering changes your mix a bit. I got my last mastering corrected a few times...

 

Right you are! Actually, it doesn't change the mix but changes what's emphasized and what's not.

 

I had mine done by a place in New Hampshire. I sent them one track and they mastered it for my approval before I had them do the entire project.

[Poker99]

Right you are! Actually, it doesn't change the mix but changes what's emphasized and what's not.

 

That's what I meant...

[MLaskow]

Thanks for the responses. They're very much in line with some of the emails I've been getting.

 

I'm pretty amazed by how many people think that getting something mastered means it's Broadcast Quality. In the land of Film and TV licensing and placements, it's really NOT about where you recorded the track or whether or not it has been mastered. I'd venture a guess that 90% of the music you hear on TV has not been mastered.

 

Read these two blogs and let me know if you're surprised at all. Worth mentioning that one of the people featured in the second blog makes $100,000 a year licensing music for film and TV. Several of the others have made many thousands as well.

 

The definition I get from the people who sign stuff for film and TV placements is that they need clean, well-recorded tracks and a well-balanced mix. You can also have something that was recorded on a Neve console by a top engineer, then mastered by a top mastering person, and it's STILL not broadcast quality because the vocal is pitchy or under performed.

 

Anyway... read these and see what you think;

http://blog.taxi.com/?tag=broadcast-quality

 

Michael

[Poker99]

 

The definition I get from the people who sign stuff for film and TV placements is that they need clean, well-recorded tracks and a well-balanced mix. You can also have something that was recorded on a Neve console by a top engineer, then mastered by a top mastering person, and it's STILL not broadcast quality because the vocal is pitchy or under performed.

 

 

I think we never considered this because its so obvious.

[SnowVox]

 

The definition I get from the people who sign stuff for film and TV placements is that they need clean, well-recorded tracks and a well-balanced mix. You can also have something that was recorded on a Neve console by a top engineer, then mastered by a top mastering person, and it's STILL not broadcast quality because the vocal is pitchy or under performed.

 

 

I'm a fan of the shelf test. Does it sound (compression, recording quality, performance, mix, levels, etc.) like something you could have bought from a big box retailer? Side by side with material getting regular mainstream commercial airplay can you hear any difference? If not, you're good.

 

I think most of these folks are looking at slick production first, then content. YMMV.

[Blackwatch]

I believe that these days "Broadcast Quality" means master the mix to remove all available headroom.......

 

Or master so the waveform looks like buttes in the desert...remove all peaks...

 

But at least it will be LOUD..........