
An audio engineer explains NPR’s signature sound - adamnemecek
http://current.org/2015/06/a-top-audio-engineer-explains-nprs-signature-sound/
======
cJ0th
> Another thing for engineers or anybody at a station to do is to go into the
> studio, turn the microphone on, crank it to 11. Don’t talk — so you don’t
> blow your ears out — and listen to the sounds of all the fans that you have
> in the room. This is one challenge that we’ve had for decades here. You’re
> never going to get it to zero. You’re never going to get it completely
> silent. Nor do you really want to, because in order to get it silent you’ve
> got to move a lot of equipment out, and there’s a lot of cost with that.

Makes me wonder why they don't record the sound of the fans and then invert
that audio track and mix it with the mic channel before broadcasting the
master channel so that the relatively periodic noise of the fan cancels itself
out.

~~~
Keyframe
Or why not use a shotgun microphone? That's what we (well, audio guys)
generally tend to use on film and TV sets.

~~~
hammock
Does not eliminate room noise. If you have worked sound on a film or TV set
I'm sure you are familiar with capturing room noise on a quiet set to mix in
during post.

~~~
Keyframe
Yeah, you're right. Sound guys always pick up room tone before or after the
shoot. I was under the impression shotgun was used to eliminate/avoid sound
sources that are not desirable. From my, limited sound experience, I've seen
sound guys use it like that on my sets. For example, there's some noise from
certain direction, but I am told not to worry about it since it won't be
picked up with shotgun. Lo and behold, it wasn't there in the source material.
It's probably due to many factors I'm not aware of though (sound reflecting of
stuff etc.). They do turn off all the A/C's, fridges, and everything that's
humming and buzzing though.

~~~
DINKDINK
The reason shotgun microphones are used is because the polar pattern[1] is
highly directionally. Basically the amount of sound that a shotgun type
microphone picks up is very strong in one direction and less in another. This
reduces peripheral sound being recorded at the same level as your target
sound.

[1] [http://www.proaudioland.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/po...](http://www.proaudioland.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/polar-patterns.jpg)

------
Ericson2314
This is a really good interview, in that the interviewer has knowledge
comparable to the interviewee. Obviously that can't be achieved for when a
single interviewer interviews people with widely ranging skills (e.g. many
radio shows themselves) but is nice to have with something niche like this.

On a different note, why is that (as far as non-expert me knows) that nice
mics often have eq settings? Is this not a blatant layer violation?

~~~
tacos
Actually it's a terrible interview because the interviewer won't shut up and
is far less knowledgable than the person he's interviewing.

The "EQ settings" on the mic are actually to compensate for proximity effect.
On the U87 it starts cutting at 1k -- way above what the interview states.

[http://www.coutant.org/u87ai/u87.pdf](http://www.coutant.org/u87ai/u87.pdf)

Another mic commonly seen in broadcast (and top podcasts) is the Shure SM7.
Has similar switches, and even comes with a plate you can screw over the top
of them so people don't futz with the settings.

~~~
geerlingguy
Mic choice is a lot more nuanced than is indicated in the review. Heil, EV,
Neumann, Shure, and other manufacturers have a variety of mics for a variety
of situations, and I bet there are some other reasons besides cost why the
RE20 is such a popular studio mic across the US.

Also, rooms, talent, and equipment are often much more influential than mic
selection in making a 'signature' sound. But mics are to audio engineers as
languages are to programmers... Everyone has a favorite, and opinions border
on the religious.

Source: worked in radio engineering for 4 years before starting programming,
live audio engineering 4 years after that, and have worked with dozens of mics
and varying degrees of on air talent in many environments.

~~~
tacos
Agreed! Unlike the U87, the RE20 is a dynamic mic so it doesn't need power.
Quieter, less to go wrong, built in pop screen, smaller but still big enough
to look "important", and you really can't break it. It's less boomy by default
and so you get a more natural sound when you close mic things with it.

Likewise I'm sure you could swap a U87 on person X with a RE20 on person Y and
it might even sound "more like NPR" depending on the natural sounds of their
voices.

~~~
geerlingguy
Agreed on all points but the "really can't break it" — it's not some crazy
indestructible capsule like the SM58! :)

~~~
riprowan
People use SM7s and RE20s as kick drum mics all the time, they're really,
really durable compared to a U87.

------
ourmandave
_... because most of our consumers were listening to Morning Edition and All
Things Considered in the automobile to and from work._

Yet they still occasionally have a story with a siren in the background, so I
start checking my mirrors and pulling over.

~~~
mcguire
Pardon me, but...

Holy shit, NPR's fascination with sound effects. Yes, I want to listen to 15
fucking seconds of someone chewing loudly between paragraphs. Sirens, crowd
noises, people talking about something undoubtedly unrelated in Urdu.

Dear god, NPR's signature sounds are why I don't listen to it.

~~~
jff
The shows with the constant sound effects also usually have what seems like a
relatively new format: they try to make it sound like the hosts (it's always
two hosts) are a couple of friends, interested laymen, having a talk at their
house about the topic. So they stop to interject ("right?!" "No!"), they talk
over each other but only occasionally so as not to annoy the listener, they
basically feel like your two friends who've read the same Wikipedia page and
are discussing it at a party.

And it's during this "conversation" that they play the sound clips:

HOST 1: "So there's this interesting thing they've just discovered, Host 2"

HOST 2: "What's that?"

HOST 1: "Scientists have discovered that when you eat..."

 _chomping and chewing noises_

HOST 1: "... you're actually oppressing black people."

 _prison cell door slams_

HOST 2: "What, seriously?"

~~~
deanCommie
That one doesn't bother me as much as this one:

HOST: "...and that's when we found Joseph SomethingOrOther" VOICE: "Hi, I'm
Joseph SomethingOrOther" HOST: "Joseph SomethingOrOther is an expert on
blahblah" VOICE: "Blahblah is foobar"

You just told me this person's name 3 times when 1 would've sufficed.

~~~
edraferi
On the other hand, this makes sure you associate the voice with the name, when
otherwise it's easy to miss.

------
danielvf
Yow! The microphone they are using is $3,600 a piece.

I guess that's not as bad as it sounds, given a twenty year life and daily
use.

[http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/U87SetZ](http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/U87SetZ)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
So let's say they have one mic per five employees. Those employees cost (I'm
guessing) at least $300 000 per year, and most of what they produce of value
for NPR goes through that mic. Doesn't look very expensive now?

And I haven't factored in cost/rent for the studio, music licensing, and a
whole lot of other OPEX. Since there are quite a few local radio stations
around, I'd say the CAPEX is not a big deal.

~~~
rwc
Am I misunderstanding, or do you seriously think NPR on-air talent is making
in excess of $300,000/yr?

~~~
Klinky
Morning Edition and All Things Considered are hugely popular. Broadcast
personalities on a national stage usefully get compensated pretty well.

~~~
macNchz
According to NPR's IRS form 990 the hosts of Morning Edition and a couple
other big shows do indeed make over $350k.

------
dredmorbius
TL;DR: It's all about that bass roll-off.

Studio construction, baffling, and noise exclusion also matter.

What I didn't see addressed were some other factors I've noticed and/or been
aware of over the years.

NPR's announcers, reporters, and hosts tend to speak conversationally. Rather
than shooting for fill-the-room, highly-inflected (a/k/a Commercial Broadcast)
voice, it's the tone you'd expect to hear from someone having a conversation
with you in a room (though perhaps a larger room, and with less mumbling).
That's a huge difference for me, and unfortunatly I'm hearing far more
commercial broadcast inflection from the recent crop of announcers, to the
point it's quite annoying. Steve Inskeep most particularly.

("Recent", for this old fart, means the past decade or so.)

The other element, and it's one I'm raging against, is that NPR has
increasingly moved to live and unedited audio, to its tremendous loss.

When the network was small and it couldn't field reporters in many locations,
sound often arrived after hours, or days, at headquarters where it was edited
for broadcast. Even the flagship news programs were _largely_ (and in cases
entirely) pre-produced, with all news segments, interviews, etc., edited
before they went on the air.

Yes, it meant that what you got from NPR was often slightly stale relative to
other news outlets, for the latest breaking news (though hourly headlines
broadcasts _were_ generally current). _But the result was polished and
digested._ In terms of a program which _informed_ rather than merely
_screamed_ , it was, I'd argue, a better product.

NPR has been falling victim to currency bias since the late 1990s and I really
don't care for it.

~~~
AstroJetson
You made two key points. One is that the NPR voices sound like they are next
to me in the car. There is good, thoughtful discussion and presentation. And
as an NPR supporter I really appreciate that. They know they have my (some) of
my attention in the car, they are not trying to wrest my focus from the Honda
about to cut me off. The low key nature works.

I listen to NPR to get the slightly stale event that someone has taken the
time to gather more than one fact and is trying to make a 1 min segment out of
it. I can't recall a time where an NPR story got walked back (looking at you
FOX) for shoddy reporting.

Posts above have whined about how much NPR talent make. You should find out
about your local morning zoo team and the Ken and Barbie team on your Action
news. Those guys don't even get out of bed for 300K a year. Plus the people
listed above also write and edit their material, vs Ken & Barbie.

At a variety of levels, NPR and their shows are worth every penny. In a few
weeks listen to them talk about the RNC / DNC conventions vs the others.

~~~
dredmorbius
I have no issues with NPR talent being well-compensated. Really, they deserve
what they can get, and they can certainly get more elsewhere.

I _do_ have issues with how several NPR reporters and anchors have been
terminated, most particularly Bob Edwards and (though she wasn't even a
reporter or anchor at the time) Lisa Simeone (one of the most awesome voices
on radio, BTW). Juan Williams, OTOH, should never have been hired in the first
place.

------
bramen
Love the superglue/epoxy trick! As the author said, hilarious. That ultra
bassy sound always rubs me the wrong way -- I'm glad to hear someone's been
going against the grain.

And it's nice that they appreciate the different destinations for their
signals, and take steps to prevent them from getting squashed into mush
through multiple compression stages.

Thoughtful people.

~~~
pistle
I'd rather they actually mod it so the switch is removed and the circuit
hardwired. I imagine someone beating up the "stuck" switch and breaking the
circuit/mic altogether.

~~~
bramen
That's a good idea. Just bypass it internally and let the switch move freely,
doing nothing. They'll learn to leave it alone pretty quickly.

~~~
stavrianos
Ha! Bet they don't. This is exactly how superstitions are made.

~~~
lb1lf
Also, any sound engineer who claims he has never eq'd a voice, an instrument,
a venue to perfection listening to the subtle changes of the sound signature
as he did so, only to find that the eq was in bypass the whole time is lying.

Don't ask me how I know.

------
keane
From an earlier submission
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2546087](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2546087))
another factor that gives NPR programs a different feel than your average live
radio interview is a large amount of careful editing, described by On the
Media’s John Soloman: [http://nprfreshair.tumblr.com/post/5449544068/lk-on-
the-medi...](http://nprfreshair.tumblr.com/post/5449544068/lk-on-the-medias-
john-soloman-explains-how)

~~~
dredmorbius
As NPR falls increasingly under the spell of "it must be live" \-- even the
hourly news summaries now start with "Live, from NPR News in Washington",
rather than the former "From NPR News in Washington", a gratuitous change that
grates -- the segments are far more frequently _not_ edited.

Among the problems this presents is what I call "the chase", which are the
final 30 seconds or so of an interview in which the host or interviewer is
quite clearly trying to wrap up with a guest, who either isn't aware of, or
doesn't want, to meet that time schedule. It is _always_ awkward, and _occurs
at the end of EVERY live interview._

(The BBC also exhibits this, the worse when it's over some long-distance
line.)

A pre-recorded, edited interview can go for full feel and length, and then be
cut to fit the timeslot. One thing I recall (and miss) from those was a far
more gracious interview wrap. I'm sure that far less of what had been said hit
the air, but what there was was better for it.

~~~
billforsternz
It always puzzles me when experienced media pros don't recognise that they are
going to be shut down abruptly by an approaching hour boundary. Sometimes this
happens every week on a regularly scheduled gig! Surely it can't be that
difficult to wear a watch and keep it accurate.

~~~
dredmorbius
It's not the approaching hour, but the 3-6 minutes allocated to a given
interview. I've come to recognise that "in the few seconds we have left" is
the cue for "wrap this up in 60 seconds". But with the _very_ wide range of
people interviewed, ranging from seasoned professionals (politicians and PR
flacks) to complete novices (hey, news happens to random people), and
especially given both language and technical barriers (it's really hard to
formulate your thoughts _and_ be cognisant of studio realities when you're
trying to catch what's being said over a scratchy long-distance link), the
awkward cut happens _very_ frequently.

I'd notice it on commercial broadcasts if I listened to those more. I am
_very_ well aware of it on NPR and BBC broadcasts. Somewhat less so on CBC.

~~~
billforsternz
Well that might be so, but the syndrome I was addressing really is the
approaching hour. It might happen for example if there is a regular slot for
"our Australian correspondent" at the end of an hour. It's supposed to be at
8:55(ish) but sometimes it's delayed or advanced. Either way, the Australian
correspondent should be aware the news at 9:00.00 is a hard boundary that is
going to cut him off, but surprisingly often he doesn't seem cognisant of that
at all. It doesn't matter what the time zone differences are - hour boundaries
are hour boundaries! (okay there are exceptions - but the Australian
correspondent is not reporting out of South Australia which has a half hour
shift).

------
baldfat
AS a former audio engineer THIS is so important for clear vocals.

> We are fans of being close-miked, and P-pops come into play there. But we
> make sure that we are within a foot of the microphone and usually a lot
> closer — close to six inches — in working with any of our on-air talent.
> That’s another element that goes into it.

------
mikejanssen
I'm Current's editor, and loving the traffic spike we're getting from this...
thanks everyone! Serious follow-up question for you -- are there other public
media/technology articles you'd be interested in reading that we should
pursue? We don't cover tech exclusively, but this post has proven to be hugely
popular (not just here but on reddit twice). Would be great to hear your
thoughts.

------
Bromskloss
Surely, bass roll-off could be done, with greater flexibility, later in the
signal path, and applied to any microphone, right?

~~~
gaur
Rolling off before the microphone amplifier means that bass frequencies can't
saturate the amplifier as easily.

~~~
Bromskloss
I get your point, but I thought we had plenty of dynamic range available these
days. Judging from the text, they seem to use it rather like an equaliser
anyway.

~~~
riprowan
Regardless of your dynamic range, in order to have maximum S/N you have to run
as hot as feasible. So there's no point capturing and amplifying any signal
you already know you don't want.

------
PepeGomez
I wonder why some people like compression so much. It almost always makes the
sound much worse.

~~~
jws
I'm fairly certain he is speaking of data compression in the article, rather
than dynamic volume compression.

The problem with sending compressed signals is that they will probably be
recompressed before making it to someone's ear and the chain of codecs may
introduce strange artifacts.

~~~
uxp100
No, I don't think so. They specifically talk about adding compression only
into their newscast unit. Why would they data compress only one segment?

Also, Compression sounds good. Too much, or badly configured compression
sounds bad, obviously. But don't throw it all away. (Not that producers are at
any risk of doing so.)

~~~
jws
I was thinking of remote newscast, where you might need to fit your data
reliably over a cellular link, but now that I think about it, I don't think
NPR does much remote newscast.

~~~
joombaga
Are you conflating dynamic range compression with data compression?

~~~
colejohnson66
Well, technically speaking, dynamic range compression /does/ make an MP3
smaller (IIRC)

~~~
joombaga
Right, but is it done for that purpose?

~~~
colejohnson66
I don't know how MP3 works, but I was under the impression that a lower
bitrate worked by compressing the dynamic range (or at least that was a side
effect)

------
Severian
The flat sound really emphasises the sibilants, and for me, excessive "mouth
noise". I hear a lot of nose whistle and saliva sounds. Maybe I suffer from
some misophonia, but it drives me crazy sometimes.

~~~
riprowan
I couldn't agree more. I think that's actually the U87s you're hearing. They
are very neutral, quite sensitive condenser mics - very unforgiving, not
"flattering" just "realistic."

Dynamic mics like most stations use (SM7, RE20) hide a lot of sibilance by
exaggerating the fundamentals.

------
riprowan
> 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.

That simple U87 costs about 5x what the other broadcasters use (typically an
SM7 or RE20) and is much more fragile and difficult to maintain. As I recall
NPR bought hundreds of U87s...

------
pepijndevos
> The NPR sound has so many tentacles. If we’re just focusing on the studio
> side, which was actually the easiest thing.

They didn't go into any of the other things.

------
retrogradeorbit
Anyone know what polar pattern they have the u87s on? Cardioid?

------
zargay01
250Hz, not 250kHz

------
jsprogrammer
It is curious that NPR contrasts itself with commercial radio, despite the
native advertising, regular name drops, and references to listeners as their
consumers (does active tuning decrease the availability of the signal for
others?).

~~~
peterkshultz
NPR is a non-profit organization. Although they need to play the advertising
game to keep the lights on, they certainly aren't there to try and make big
profits on their listeners.

Commercial radio is not like this.

~~~
justinph
NPR (and their member stations) do not have advertising per se. Rather, they
call it underwriting and there are very specific rules about what format the
underwriting can take. Here are the guidelines:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/03/11/392355447/n...](http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/03/11/392355447/nprs-
underwriting-guidelines-part-one)

I used to work at one of the largest NPR affiliate stations. Listener support
is hugely important, most of the money we made came from listeners. IMHO, NPR
is pretty successful in that they have built a model that supports quality
journalism, at a decent scale, without a lot of annoyances for the user.
Newspapers and other media orgs could stand to learn a lot.

------
lucb1e
I don't know NPR but from reading about half the article, it seems to be a
radio station in America that flipped a switch on their microphones. Am I
missing some insight, or is that all?

~~~
lucb1e
Five downvotes, but no comments. What am I missing then?

~~~
Gracana
Maybe admitting to not reading the whole article, making a glib comment, and
asking for someone else to do your thinking for you just wasn't received well.

------
pklausler
NPR's "signature sound", sadly, is being overrun with hideous vocal fries.

~~~
gaur
Is this a misophonia thing? I really couldn't care less about vocal fry.

~~~
sukilot
It is a prejudice against people who sound a certain way, especially women.

~~~
honkhonkpants
It's a preference, not prejudice. Prejudice would be if you see a person and
assume they speak a certain way based on other characteristics like age, race,
gender, or appearance.

But if you actually hear them speak and don't like their voice, that's not
prejudice.

~~~
tptacek
When you describe the natural sound of someone's voice as if it were
pathological or the product of incompetent mic/broadcast technique, you're
moving past "preference" and into something darker.

~~~
honkhonkpants
Maybe, but the style in question is cultivated. I don't think it's prejudice
if you don't like the way Coltrane plays the sax. I feel the same way if you
don't like some person's intentional vocal affectations.

~~~
tptacek
It's the notion that "vocal fry" is an "intentional vocal affectation" that
generates so much professional scorn for listeners who complain about "vocal
fry".

[http://val-systems.blogspot.com/2011/12/on-vocal-fry.html](http://val-
systems.blogspot.com/2011/12/on-vocal-fry.html)

~~~
honkhonkpants
Not sure what we are arguing about here. I don't believe any of the three
myths that article purports to debunk. It's not a myth though that fry is
something one does to ones own voice, intentionally or from habit. It is the
same for American gay male voice: just a style of speaking, learned to conform
to a peer group, and relatively easily changed even in adulthood.

~~~
tptacek
Respectfully, please color me unsurprised that two traditionally marginalized
groups in American culture just happen to have problematic "styles of
speaking, learned to conform to a peer group, relatively easily changed".

I agree with what Alex Goldman from Reply All has to say about this
phenomenon.

What reading I've done about this suggests that to the extent the phenomenon
is empirically grounded at all, it applies both to men and women, while
_complaints_ about it are almost entirely gendered.

~~~
notduncansmith
I think that's because vocal fry is usually seen as somewhat "out of place" in
a female speaking voice. Few, if any, complain about male vocal fry because
male voices are expected to be low and gravelly.

Preference against female vocal fry is just an nth-order effect from basic
biology, and bias against females who use vocal fry is just an (n+1)th-order
effect. A bias like that is often not a useful decision-making heuristic and
should be checked accordingly.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comments but it sounds like you share some of
the outraged tone I read from the article you linked above, and I'm really
confused as to why. It's just a thing some people do with their voices
(sometimes but not always consciously) and some people do or don't like
(sometimes but not always consciously). Are you saying people shouldn't care
about vocal fry at all?

I also don't understand your hesitance to acknowledge the phenomenon of vocal
fry. I'm not sure if these are entirely credible sources but here are some
links that I found informative:

\-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqW8jdlaSk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqW8jdlaSk)
"How Does Vocal Fry Work?"

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register)

~~~
tptacek
I agree with what Alex Goldman from Reply All has to say about this phenomenon
and have little else to add at this point.

