• 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

8100A and Aphex compellor

R

radioactiv911

We have an Aphex compelllor and an Optimod 8100A. I am trying to "bandaid" our sound quality and need some setting suggestions.

Should I Still run the Aphec compellor 320 or should I just run the optimod by iteslf. I had previously posted on here and got some great comments, you guys are awesome. I removed the compressor and the Stereo Maxx, and the station sounds 50% better, but still needs work. . I need to know what I should set the compellor and optimod at. It still dosen't have the punch that other stations have. I haven't tried the Optimod by itself. I am not a fan of the compellor, but maybe with the right settings..I might be.
 
Use the Compellor in Compress mode (control full clockwise). Set the 8100 release around 9:00 or 8:30 and adjust the band coupling to the need for bass (clockwise yields less bass as the bands get coupled). Drive the 8100 to -20 on compress for CHR/Rock/Oldies and -10 to -15 for AC/Country. -5 to -10 for educational/jazz.

Also, check your Card 5. The older Card 5's (with the darker grey knobs and brown circuit board) had better punch than the later Card 5's with the green boards and the whiter knobs.
 
If you want more punch, you either need to add a set of prisms or something in front of the 8100. The compeller will help keep your level into the 8100 consistant (although the AGC in the 8100 is fine by itself) but you need some kind of multiband unit in front of it if you want more punch. Also, if you keep the compeller in there, put the prisms or whatever, between the compeller and the 8100.

Other option is to find an Orban XT multiband limiter to add to the 8100. That sounds even better than the prisms.
 
listner1 said:
Other option is to find an Orban XT multiband limiter to add to the 8100.
Click to expand...
Someone could make a MINT if they'd make a knockoff of the XT2 to work with the thousands of 8100A's still out there. Orban stopped making XT2's way too early...
 
BobOnTheJob said:
listner1 said:
Other option is to find an Orban XT multiband limiter to add to the 8100.
Click to expand...
Someone could make a MINT if they'd make a knockoff of the XT2 to work with the thousands of 8100A's still out there. Orban stopped making XT2's way too early...
Click to expand...

I think one mistake Orban made was to get away from the sound of the 8000, 8100 and 8100 XT in their digital lineup. I'm not sure why they never gave you a simple choice to emulate the 8100 or XT sound with the DSP boxes. Most of their DSP presets sound smashed. You really have to work to get them to open up. The 8100 had simply the best peak to average ratio without sounding smashed. Their new stuff has no dynamic range unless you go with a very soft preset. I believe this is one reason why Omnia has been so successful. Their offerings are open and punchy. Where Orban surpasses the other DSP companies is with the quality of the stereo encoders and other internal components.
 
fm-engineer said:
BobOnTheJob said:
listner1 said:
Other option is to find an Orban XT multiband limiter to add to the 8100.
Click to expand...
Someone could make a MINT if they'd make a knockoff of the XT2 to work with the thousands of 8100A's still out there. Orban stopped making XT2's way too early...
Click to expand...

I think one mistake Orban made was to get away from the sound of the 8000, 8100 and 8100 XT in their digital lineup. I'm not sure why they never gave you a simple choice to emulate the 8100 or XT sound with the DSP boxes. Most of their DSP presets sound smashed. You really have to work to get them to open up. The 8100 had simply the best peak to average ratio without sounding smashed. Their new stuff has no dynamic range unless you go with a very soft preset. I believe this is one reason why Omnia has been so successful. Their offerings are open and punchy. Where Orban surpasses the other DSP companies is with the quality of the stereo encoders and other internal components.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. There is a lot of "XT2" sound in our digital boxes, along with some "Gregg Labs" sound.

When we put an 8100/XT2 against an 8500 by switching their composite outputs into a Belar stereo monitor (which is typically how we do A/Bs), we find that for the same amount of perceived distortion (particularly on speech), the 8500 can get considerably louder and brighter than the 8100/XT combo because of the 8500's clipping distortion controller. If you back off the 8500 to be as loud as the 8100/XT combo, you can open up the sound quite a bit. This is one use for the LESS-MORE controls on the presets.

Our philosophy has always been to minimize obvious clipping distortion and to instead accept some density build-up when going for highest loudness. We think this is a better compromise, particularly for retaining women listeners. Of course, IMO the best thing to do is just to back off the limiting and clipping by a few dB and accept the idea that loudness is an industry obsession that is irrelevant to listeners, at least until the day comes when manufacturers no longer put volume controls on radios.

Bob Otbn
 
No doubt about the fact that newer digital Optimods are capable of far better results with clipping and clarity. But for those who liked the XT2 combo there's still "something" different in the sonic signature. That's why I asked in other threads "what is the closest preset to XT2" for digital Optimods, I never got a real answer... I think of a kind of preset using the same time constants, ratios, band coupling, crossovers... I've read something like "if you want a 8100XT2 sound, then use a good recaped and aligned 8100XT2!" I respect that idea but it's not an easy solution if you have many stations and if you need to go fully digital.
 
The Rock Medium MX setting on an 8300 with the HF EQ boosted to 3.0 gives a sound very close to an XT2 Optimod in my opinion. It is very clean and, like the 8100/XT2, not quite as loud as the more aggressive presets.

Chris
 
stha said:
...there's still "something" different in the sonic signature. ...if you need to go fully digital.
Click to expand...
I guess you hit the real problem right there... IMHO there is no digital box in the world that sounds like an analog box. Just like there is no software plug-in that sounds like the original hardware. Once the original analog schematic is replaced by digital code the sound is... different. Analog example? During 'talks' you can nicely use the ducking effect. Yes, also with the multiband analogues. Especially with a nice dark voice this sounds very 'fat', the audio is 'stacked'. No digital box can match this.
 
If you like the older analog stuff, there's likely some people on here that would GLADLY trade you an old 8100 XT/2 for something like a Telos One. You'll need to of course spend some more money on it and send it over to Bill Sacks, but you'll get what you want. Why re-invent the wheel? For the right bucks the real deal out there and rebuildable in the used world.
 
Keep in mind there are several small market guys these days that can't seem to get the 2800 bucks they need for a 'new processor'. (I know a couple of them even) The old analog stuff would be great if they could afford to pay to get it fixed. If you want the analog sound you can exploit this situation and do a trade and get them what they need and what you need. The end result is it would be a win-win.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom