Why do so many budget processors try to emulate the Orban Optimod?

[radiodeviation7]

I have noticed that almost every budget processor on the market today is essentially a bad copy of the Orban Optimod. The same limiter design, the same pre-emphasis placement, the same time constants, the same settings...

Come on, be more innovative! Bring something new to the table.

There are of course exceptions to this: The DSPX series is amazing and gives a unique sound.

The other budget processors, though, not so much.

 

[kevtronics]

A few reasons I can think of:

1. It's a time-tested architecture that works well. It's easier to copy what works than to try to reinvent the wheel.
2. It's what many people in radio have personal experience with and are familiar with.
3. It's to help market their product as a replacement/upgrade for a station with an aging Optimod, without radically changing their sonic signature.
4. Especially for low-budget processors, their biggest competitor might actually be a used/hand-me-down Optimod.

 

[secondchoice]

Assuming you're not in a loudness war, Stereo Tool is OK. There are a lot more folks that can work on PCs than broadcast equipment if there is an issue. Run it on Linux. If you insist on using a Microsoft product be don't forget to turn off the updates.

 

[Kelly A]

A few reasons I can think of:

1. It's a time-tested architecture that works well. It's easier to copy what works than to try to reinvent the wheel.
2. It's what many people in radio have personal experience with and are familiar with.
3. It's to help market their product as a replacement/upgrade for a station with an aging Optimod, without radically changing their sonic signature.
4. Especially for low-budget processors, their biggest competitor might actually be a used/hand-me-down Optimod.

I've got one more:
Because unless you're prepared to drop ten large on an Omnia 11 with all the options, you get what you pay for.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

In my experience (AM Optimod) it's hard to make it sound bad! You can do it but it isn't easy.

 

[pclover]

This is something i found on youtube being bored. Obviously it's compressed on YouTube that will change it a bit.

Yes, Obviously the OPTIMOD is better but it's also FAR more expensive then stereo tool.

 

[cc333]

I like Stereo Tool. It's good enough for my Part 15 AM project that it sounds semi professional, which is neat.

Something I'd like to see (or hear?), though, is an affordable processor that can emulate the sounds of the old 1960s equipment (the so-called "Max Brothers", which were the Audimax and, think, Volumax??). It would be fun to play around with that, even though it would probably be a waste of time, since what I have already, humble though it may be, is far superior in every way to anything available back then.

c

 

[davideduardo]

I like Stereo Tool. It's good enough for my Part 15 AM project that it sounds semi professional, which is neat.

Something I'd like to see (or hear?), though, is an affordable processor that can emulate the sounds of the old 1960s equipment (the so-called "Max Brothers", which were the Audimax and, think, Volumax??). It would be fun to play around with that, even though it would probably be a waste of time, since what I have already, humble though it may be, is far superior in every way to anything available back then.

c

I installed the first Audimax and Volumax combo in South America in the earlier 60's. Compared with other stations in my market, Quito, Ecuador, it made the station sound both loud and clear. Previously available gear was very poor on AGC action and the Audimax did this very well without significant artifacts. The Volumax was a single band compressor and limiter, so it could make some songs with very "loud" single instruments cause the whole audio spectrum to be unduly limited.

But the Volumax was gentler on peak limiting than earlier products, and if used with the Audimax, it did not have to attack as much since it was provided with already leveled audio.

What few took advantage of was the third element of the CBS gear: the Dynamic Presence Equalizer. In effect, it looked at what it considered the "presence" band of each audio element and made sure that it was not buried by the bass or higher frequency components of audio. It tried to identify the presence band of each item (song, commercial, etc) dynamically and was pretty good at it. I had them on all my contemporary music stations, and it made them sound "crisp" and "clear" (listener comments).

None of the products back then were multi-band. And none delayed the audio so that the processing could "read ahead" and control the full waveform rather than attacking it when it got "too loud". That was more than a decade away.

The most significant reason to use that gear was that it made a station sound much better than competitors who did not have it. Today, the only reason to use the pair would be to try to emulate the sound of stations from that era, requiring dubs from the original records as well.

 

[bigdonho]

Used the Dynamic Presence box at a couple of stations over the years. Combined with the Max twins it made for a really good, warm and consistent sound to the station. Wish it was still available.

 

[cc333]

@DavidEduardo Interesting!

I see that for ~$1,200, I could get all three units (CBS Max Twins + the Dynamic Presence EQ I didn't know about until now), though all would likely need some work to be fully operable (getting working units upfront costs more, of course). If I save up, it might be a fun project.

c

 

[davideduardo]

@DavidEduardo Interesting!

I see that for ~$1,200, I could get all three units (CBS Max Twins + the Dynamic Presence EQ I didn't know about until now), though all would likely need some work to be fully operable (getting working units upfront costs more, of course). If I save up, it might be a fun project.

Those are all 55 to 60 years old, so consider that the electrolitics are in need of change. Anything that used material that would dry out as a dielectric could be bad, including some transformers from that era.

 

[cc333]

Those are all 55 to 60 years old, so consider that the electrolitics are in need of change. Anything that used material that would dry out as a dielectric could be bad, including some transformers from that era.

OK. Fortunately, in my experience, old electronics tend to use a few large-ish capacitors as opposed to many small ones (this is especially true of tube hardware, I've found), like in more modern designs, so changing them shouldn't be too hard (I like to collect and restore old computer hardware from the 80s and early 90s, and recapping is a must on almost all of them).

Transformers with fluid dielectric materials, though? That's a new one to me. I guess just like capacitors, just replace it with a modern part that handles the proper current load and outputs the proper voltages.

c

 

[PTBoardOp93]

Transformers with fluid dielectric materials, though? That's a new one to me. I guess just like capacitors, just replace it with a modern part that handles the proper current load and outputs the proper voltages.

Transformers, especially large transformers capable of handling many kilowatts, used to be regularly made with PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).

That particular group of chemicals are no longer used because they are highly toxic when they leak. There was a case in Japan decades ago of PCBs contaminating animal feed that ended up poisoning hospitalizing thousands of Japanese, several hundred of whom did not survive.

Yusho: 43 years later - PubMed

The aim of the present study is to describe recent issues with Yusho disease in Japan, describe the state of dioxin accumulation and the intake of dioxin via food in Japan, and introduce the Japan Environment and Children's Study. Yusho disease manifested in western Japan in 1968. The causes of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[cc333]

Ah, yeah. PCBs are pretty nasty.

Fortunately, It's most likely that any capacitor or transformer in an AudiMax or VoluMax will have had it's contents evaporated years ago, and thus would be relatively safe to carefully handle and dispose of. And even if not, they're only toxic if they get broken open somehow, since they're sealed anyway usually. Modern parts have their own problems, but toxicologically, I believe that they're generally quite a bit safer. This reminds me that I have an Ampex tape recorder built in 1959-1960 that probably has some of this nastiness in it (even though it's pushing 65 years old, it electronically still works quite well with its original components, so I'm going to try to leave it alone).

We humans have really done this planet a grave disservice, and now we're getting stuck with the consequences.

Enough of that deeply depressing subject!

Does anyone on here know if anyone has ever come up with software-based emulations of the Audi/VoluMax?

c

 

[davideduardo]

Transformers, especially large transformers capable of handling many kilowatts, used to be regularly made with PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).

That particular group of chemicals are no longer used because they are highly toxic when they leak. There was a case in Japan decades ago of PCBs contaminating animal feed that ended up poisoning hospitalizing thousands of Japanese, several hundred of whom did not survive.

Unfortunately, sometimes regulations made things worse. In CA in the early days of PCB regulation, you had to do paperwork and authorized disposal agencies would only take large lots, such as from a factory substation or a power company.

A radio station decommissioning an old transmitter could not get anyone to take them. The subject came up in one discussion I heard, and the solution was "take it to the 7-11 after midnight and put it in the trash container."

 

[Kelly A]

Hey for you Audimax/Volumax fans; I've got two 1RU Audimax's (not the CBS ones) available for sale. They both work well.
PM me if you're interested.

 

[davideduardo]

Hey for you Audimax/Volumax fans; I've got two 1RU Audimax's (not the CBS ones) available for sale. They both work well.
PM me if you're interested.

How much will you give me to take them off your hands?

 

[Kelly A]

How much will you give me to take them off your hands?

For you David? -$600 plus -shipping for the pair.

 

[NBC_Hotline]

OK. Fortunately, in my experience, old electronics tend to use a few large-ish capacitors as opposed to many small ones (this is especially true of tube hardware, I've found), like in more modern designs, so changing them shouldn't be too hard (I like to collect and restore old computer hardware from the 80s and early 90s, and recapping is a must on almost all of them).

Transformers with fluid dielectric materials, though? That's a new one to me. I guess just like capacitors, just replace it with a modern part that handles the proper current load and outputs the proper voltages.

c

Please forgive this late reply; I've just found this thread. Vacuum tubes, with their relatively high impedances, used relatively small value coupling capacitors (usually much smaller than 1mfd). Discrete transistor electronics, such as you'll find in most of the CBS trio (I think first gen, audimax at least, were vacuum tube), with their relatively low impedances, use relatively bigger value coupling capacitors. You're likely to find electrolytic coupling caps between stages. In a way, though, that can work in your favor, because you can replace them with tantalum, which will sound better than the original electrolytics.

I doubt that the small power transformers in these CBS units contained any cooling oil. Of course if you need to replace audio transformers, you'll need to find something with comparable audio quality, and if you're refurbishing a stereo unit, you'll have to replace them in pairs so the two channels match.

 

[NBC_Hotline]

I installed the first Audimax and Volumax combo in South America in the earlier 60's. Compared with other stations in my market, Quito, Ecuador, it made the station sound both loud and clear. Previously available gear was very poor on AGC action and the Audimax did this very well without significant artifacts. The Volumax was a single band compressor and limiter, so it could make some songs with very "loud" single instruments cause the whole audio spectrum to be unduly limited.

But the Volumax was gentler on peak limiting than earlier products, and if used with the Audimax, it did not have to attack as much since it was provided with already leveled audio.

What few took advantage of was the third element of the CBS gear: the Dynamic Presence Equalizer. In effect, it looked at what it considered the "presence" band of each audio element and made sure that it was not buried by the bass or higher frequency components of audio. It tried to identify the presence band of each item (song, commercial, etc) dynamically and was pretty good at it. I had them on all my contemporary music stations, and it made them sound "crisp" and "clear" (listener comments).

None of the products back then were multi-band. And none delayed the audio so that the processing could "read ahead" and control the full waveform rather than attacking it when it got "too loud". That was more than a decade away.

The most significant reason to use that gear was that it made a station sound much better than competitors who did not have it. Today, the only reason to use the pair would be to try to emulate the sound of stations from that era, requiring dubs from the original records as well.

One station where I worked did use the DPE. It did make an audible difference when the input material was noticeably lacking in mids. However, it was slow to act, even for its time. Apparently the design philosophy was not to tamper with the spectral balance unless there was a significant and consistent lack of mids. We had one jock with a fairly deep voice, who insisted on working the mic (a BK5) too close. So when he started to talk, the first word or two would be boomy, then you'd hear the change as the DPE raised the presence level. Pretty much unavoidable, given the lack of look-ahead ability.