• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Stereo expanders / boosters / enhancers -- Yes? No? How much? Which one?

G

GeneSavage

I'm mostly looking for info on how CHRs were set up in the 80s & 90s, but any format and any era would be interesting to hear about.

Have you / do you use a stereo expander? Do you have it set "wide open," "barely expanding," or somewhere in-between? Do you have a preference in stereo expanders? I'm sure you have horror stories about bad expanders; which ones to you avoid?

I'm currently using a software-based expander and like the sound generally, but as with most expanders I've played with, it tends to exaggerate the reverb and can highlight every fault and flaw in the phasing, balance and tonality of the recordings. It seems for every benefit, there's a down-side.

What's YOUR experience?
 
I never used one over-the-air but one FM station I engineered during the late 1980's had a Stereomaxx and it appeared to work well. According to the designer it was not suppose to create any problems as it would cancel out in mono.

I picked up one when I was running my oldies webstream and I did notice that some music would sound odd when processed through it but the percentage of the songs affected this way was low.
 
chriscollins said:
Orban has theres built into the digital boxes. I think it sounds pretty good. I prefer it on, rather than off.
Click to expand...

Orban's digital Optimods contain their algorithm based on the tried and true Orban 222 of the late 80's.
I ran them on several stations I engineered in the era and was pleased with the subtle effect it had.
It gently accentuated the stereo field without causing additional multipath or punching a hole in the virtual
center channel.

The 222 needed to be first in the chain (fed unprocessed audio before the Compellor or other prep processor) to be effective
as it worked on audio peaks. I saw a few engineers place it after an AGC/compressor and then complained that it didn't work.

I still use this feature in the digital Optimods and still like the sound.

mb
 
I should add that on the Orban boxes, I leave it at 2.50, but I do reduce the ratio to 90%. At 100% on one of my stations, it seems to increase the multipath a bit (that station is prone to multipath). I find at 90%, it does not do that and still provides a wonderful effect.

As far as stereo enhancement goes, I find that Orban's widens the fields without making it sound artificial. I think they have a really good algorithm.
 
Agreed. Orban's works well.

On the software side, Stereo Tool's enhancer works quite well.
 
I recall the CRL enhancement on one of their modules. Early 90s. Each time a recorded cart splice passed on the heads would sound like a "nice" expanded thump thump. But it sounded amazing on music to me,, not like the "soft phase reversal" commonly used these days. My opinion as a listener.
 
Anything that you do to enhance the stereo separation will change the mono signal as well. Stereo enhancement was a short-lived trick that stations used in the 80s so that they sounded 'different' than the competition. After going through that phase in the 80s, my suggestion is simple. Don't do it.
 
frankberry said:
Anything that you do to enhance the stereo separation will change the mono signal as well. Stereo enhancement was a short-lived trick that stations used in the 80s so that they sounded 'different' than the competition. After going through that phase in the 80s, my suggestion is simple. Don't do it.
Click to expand...

Funny- that's the same thing the old head engineers said about the Optimod when I was just starting out. They told me to stick with the Max Sisters for processing. I didn't listen then either.
 
Go ahead and use the stereo enhancement. You'll see for yourself that it WILL have an effect on your L+R signal and can very well cause an increase in multipath (due to the higher amplitude of the L-R sidebands).
 
markbohach said:
The 222 needed to be first in the chain (fed unprocessed audio before the Compellor or other prep processor) to be effective
as it worked on audio peaks. I saw a few engineers place it after an AGC/compressor and then complained that it didn't work.


mb
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this were the case, the Compellor or other prep processor (or any device AFTER the 222) must be absolutely left-right coupled. Thus the compellor's enhance switch must be off, and the compression and leveling must both be linked. If another pre-processor is used the same would apply, as any left-right differences that follow the 222 can cause very extreme boosts in L-R energy when the enhancement is active.
 
SFM-Ptgal said:
I recall the CRL enhancement on one of their modules. Early 90s. Each time a recorded cart splice passed on the heads would sound like a "nice" expanded thump thump. But it sounded amazing on music to me,, not like the "soft phase reversal" commonly used these days. My opinion as a listener.
Click to expand...

Ummm yeah... You're supposed to use a splice finder on those things before you recorded on it.

R
 
dannyscott101 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this were the case, the Compellor or other prep processor (or any device AFTER the 222) must be absolutely left-right coupled. Thus the compellor's enhance switch must be off, and the compression and leveling must both be linked. If another pre-processor is used the same would apply, as any left-right differences that follow the 222 can cause very extreme boosts in L-R energy when the enhancement is active.
Click to expand...

Yes- you are correct about this. In fact, the entire chain needed to be checked with a tone to make sure left and right were in balance and the L-R component was nulled. Otherwise unpleasant artifacts could develop.

IMHO a much bigger problem aggrevating multipath in the 1980's was AM syncronous noise. A poorly tuned tube transmitter (one not
tuned for best AM sync noise figure) caused far more multipath issues than an Orban 222.
 
The Orban 222 controlled the amount of L-R that it could produce. They did this so as not to increase station multipath due to excessive L-R and the increased bandwidth that it would occupy. I've even heard of stations which purposely 'blended' their stereo, reducing stereo separation so as to reduce multipath.
 
When I started working there and knowing the splice effect on the air I started using one... my eyes... AA2 carts were checked with the cart machine cover off...
This was in response to Robert Bass..
D***... The new forum layout sucks... .
 
Last edited:
frankberry said:
The Orban 222 controlled the amount of L-R that it could produce. They did this so as not to increase station multipath due to excessive L-R and the increased bandwidth that it would occupy. I've even heard of stations which purposely 'blended' their stereo, reducing stereo separation so as to reduce multipath.
Click to expand...

Omnia processors will allow you to reduce L-R by 3 db or 6 db.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom