-
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
BW DSPX range
- Thread starter dspxscott
- Start date
Well for starters: 
I would like to see more bass clipping options in de dspx-fm. I find the gap between hard/soft to big for my taste. I tried to solve this before the clipping section with the lower two limiters but still there is a big change in overall signature sound between these two settings. I ran it from the beginning with soft clipping and thought this was what I was looking for but now I'm running it with the hard clipping and think that although I don't like it's lower freq's it does handles the mid/hi's better this way. So maybe a option for mid clipping would be the right one for me (ajustable knee would be awsome). And I would like to have stereo enhancement as well, tricky stuff but I like it. And one of the things I couldn't lay my fingers on yet (and probably it's me and not the box) is the ducking in the higher freq's under certain circumstances. Right now I have set the 3th and 4th attack/release pretty fast and this seems to work but at expenses of the openness off course. I would appreciate it if I could solve this issue with you. For the record I didn't ask Scott before, not that he wasn't willing to help or anything.
I would like to see more bass clipping options in de dspx-fm. I find the gap between hard/soft to big for my taste. I tried to solve this before the clipping section with the lower two limiters but still there is a big change in overall signature sound between these two settings. I ran it from the beginning with soft clipping and thought this was what I was looking for but now I'm running it with the hard clipping and think that although I don't like it's lower freq's it does handles the mid/hi's better this way. So maybe a option for mid clipping would be the right one for me (ajustable knee would be awsome). And I would like to have stereo enhancement as well, tricky stuff but I like it. And one of the things I couldn't lay my fingers on yet (and probably it's me and not the box) is the ducking in the higher freq's under certain circumstances. Right now I have set the 3th and 4th attack/release pretty fast and this seems to work but at expenses of the openness off course. I would appreciate it if I could solve this issue with you. For the record I didn't ask Scott before, not that he wasn't willing to help or anything.
Oh and one other thing, not so much sound wise but more a practicality; the number of presets that can be stored. I experiment a lot with presets and I A/B a lot presets with tiny differences between them so I often have to store one to file and import another. It's not a big deal but if it's a simple fix.....
I usually run the Band 4 limiter into virtually no gain reduction in the limiter. Only on extereme HF energy will it tickle off some gain. This keeps the limiter from squashing the highs. Now, what about HF control?
Well, Scotts HF clippers are so good that they will deal with the highs with very little help from the limiter I have found, leaving the sound to be very open. The key is playing with the extras in the clipper to find a good tradeoff.
The other end of this is adjusting the highs in the 4 band AGC to keep things consistent.. and relying on the limiter ONLY for extreme peaks.
The other trick with the highs is to make sure that the HOLD is on 0 or 1 (whichever is the quickest function) and that the gate is pretty open. You have to work on that based on how you are driving the limiters.
My other problem has been transients on older stuff. The DSP-X deals with hypercompressed material like nobody's business. It's silky voices and singers that get it in trouble in the midrage where it's over detecting and over correcting, causing for odd sudden EQ changes that, depending on the level of audio around the transient, can last anywhere from a second to 5 seconds or more before the box recovers.
As for the bass, I like the soft clipping...I think it produces a big sound... better than the Orban processors which have that Ogonowski gutter /ripple bass that never sounds as full or warm as the 8100 bass. I don't know how much more control they want to give given what the box is and where it is on the grand scheme of things compared to the other boxes in the line. It is a 5 year old box now, which is an eternity in digital processors. Still, it is still one of the best boxes for the buck with the Omnia ONE, which is leaps and bounds ahead of the 3 Turbo.
Well, Scotts HF clippers are so good that they will deal with the highs with very little help from the limiter I have found, leaving the sound to be very open. The key is playing with the extras in the clipper to find a good tradeoff.
The other end of this is adjusting the highs in the 4 band AGC to keep things consistent.. and relying on the limiter ONLY for extreme peaks.
The other trick with the highs is to make sure that the HOLD is on 0 or 1 (whichever is the quickest function) and that the gate is pretty open. You have to work on that based on how you are driving the limiters.
My other problem has been transients on older stuff. The DSP-X deals with hypercompressed material like nobody's business. It's silky voices and singers that get it in trouble in the midrage where it's over detecting and over correcting, causing for odd sudden EQ changes that, depending on the level of audio around the transient, can last anywhere from a second to 5 seconds or more before the box recovers.
As for the bass, I like the soft clipping...I think it produces a big sound... better than the Orban processors which have that Ogonowski gutter /ripple bass that never sounds as full or warm as the 8100 bass. I don't know how much more control they want to give given what the box is and where it is on the grand scheme of things compared to the other boxes in the line. It is a 5 year old box now, which is an eternity in digital processors. Still, it is still one of the best boxes for the buck with the Omnia ONE, which is leaps and bounds ahead of the 3 Turbo.
wgliradio said:
I'll try to ease on the limiting of band 4, I have set the hold to 1 already and the gate around -38. And with the advanced clipping and distortion control a good balance between loudness/distortion. I agree that the soft bassclip produces a big low punch but I have a compellor 320A and Big Bottom running in front so this already gives a nice punch that I like, add hard clipping to this in de dspx-fm and it's pretty close to my taste.
The issue you are referring to with sudden EQ changes does sounds familiar. Generally I play Top40 hyper compressed dance/pop and this doesn't causes problems but when I play 70/80's and some 90's strange things can happen making the sound inconsistent. But I'll send Goran my current preset, maybe I am way off.
The F Mister said:
OK, let's take it from the top
As part of Xtreme development we plan to revise the bass as a whole, with additional features. This will then propagate down to DSPXtra, DSPX and possibly DSPXmini (probably in reduced form) and should allow more flexibility in setting the bass and different feel of it.
We will also look into adding the stereo enhancer for DSPX, but at a later date. As you probably know, DSPXtra provides stereo enhancement as part of the Ariane matrix mode operation if you are considering to upgrade. In regards to upgrading, I'm discussing with our sales manager about the possibility to do a time-limited special offer on the Xtreme for existing BW Broadcast users only. He is revising it and I will let you know how it works out. If anyone is interested in this offer contact me directly.
You might have noticed from my comments on other processors that I don't like hearing overly noticeable HF ducking either, so handling of HF transients is already on our to-do list. In fact we are looking into this with mini-FM right now.
Finally, increasing the number of presets in DSPX is not an easy thing to do. Like you said, you can always save presets on PC if you want to save every step you make in tweaking. In DSPXtreme the number of user preset has been doubled to 16.
Now, back to work!
Regards,
Goran Tomas
Thanks for the info Goran, nice to see that BW value their existing users with a special offer (if this works out with the sales guy).
So far allmost all my points are taken in to consideration and as I said about the presets "it's not a big deal". Although I'm somewhat surprised to hear that this isn't a quick fix. When you take a look a the competitors. Current boxes can hold essentially unlimited presets and even the older omnia/orbans can have more than 8 user presets. But it's the sound at the end that counts. So please put all time into that.
So far allmost all my points are taken in to consideration and as I said about the presets "it's not a big deal". Although I'm somewhat surprised to hear that this isn't a quick fix. When you take a look a the competitors. Current boxes can hold essentially unlimited presets and even the older omnia/orbans can have more than 8 user presets. But it's the sound at the end that counts. So please put all time into that.
The F Mister said:Thanks for the info Goran, nice to see that BW value their existing users with a special offer (if this works out with the sales guy).
So far allmost all my points are taken in to consideration and as I said about the presets "it's not a big deal". Although I'm somewhat surprised to hear that this isn't a quick fix. When you take a look a the competitors. Current boxes can hold essentially unlimited presets and even the older omnia/orbans can have more than 8 user presets. But it's the sound at the end that counts. So please put all time into that.
I'll pick this point up.
Our 1U processors employ an 8 bit microcontroller for the control system that has only 1KB of internal EEPROM. There is no external memory in the units. This restricts the number of user presets. Other manufacturers use a more traditional processor that employs external (to the CPU) memory devices, usually ram and various forms of ROM. It's our simple architechture that keeps the cost of our units lower than the competition ;D 8).
The DSPXtreme with its dual colour screens employs a 32 bit processor with external flash memory as well as lots of external ram 8). This enables us to store unlimited presets and to implement the diversity delay that was missing from the original DSPX processors. We choose 16 preset slots for the DSPXtreme as a starting figure. If customers really need more we will increase it in future revisions.
I've been too busy of late
to put in the time that i would have liked with the DSPX range due to other business commitments but I am still around, helping Goran and Paul with the processing ;D. It's refreshing to have the processing department running at full steam again . We can stick in unlimited factory presets into the existing boxes and increasing the range and diversity of these is something Goran will be looking into. This will hopefully reduce the need to expand on the user presets that you require. Talk to Goran on getting your killer presets included in the next release of software.
Goran will do a great job and it's good to have him on board.
If anyone else wants a job, has the neccesary skills and can stand the grey sky in England drop us a line. wgliradio said:
I've been working in the DC/Baltimore/Philly area since January. I was surprised at how many stereo enhancers were turned off in the Optimod/Omnia line-up. Nobody seems to hide processing equipment in the major markets anymore. Anyway, on to VA and NC for some NPR HD work.
Than don't turn it on if it came with the option would be my thoughts.
Well in that same line you could say, if everyone is backing off on the loudness war audio quality would improve. I agree but we do not live in that kind of world. I have a car that can go twice the speed that is allowed but I don't go twice the speed but I do like the thought that when I want I can (or when I go over the autobahn in Germany, last peace of road heaven on the planet).
If the manufacturer decides not to include a certain option ok, but not based upon the fact that someone can misuse it. That can be said about so much more options in audio processing they would have to build a processor with only a on/off switch.
If the manufacturer decides not to include a certain option ok, but not based upon the fact that someone can misuse it. That can be said about so much more options in audio processing they would have to build a processor with only a on/off switch.
While I personally don't like to use stereo enhancement, or if I'm using it, it will be only a very small amount ("if you can hear it, it's too much" is my rule) F Mister is ultimately right - you have to give the option to the users and leave it up to them how to set up a processor. If we would to restrict all controls that could get users into trouble, we would be back to what 8100 offered in terms of adjustability. Which might not be a bad a thing because a lot of time the users are confused with lots of controls, they don't understand them fully and/or don't take enough time to listen to the consequences of adjusting a control on a wide range of program material and in different listening conditions. Also, there's a psychological factor. This is why we are thinking of making levels of adjustability for our processors which would simplify adjustment for most users, as well as developing a much more intuitive user interface for the Xtreme (something you haven't seen before).
Regards,
Goran Tomas
because a lot of time the users are confused with lots of controls, they don't understand them fully and/or don't take enough time to listen to the consequences of adjusting a control on a wide range of program material and in different listening conditions. Also, there's a psychological factor. This is why we are thinking of making levels of adjustability for our processors which would simplify adjustment for most users, as well as developing a much more intuitive user interface for the Xtreme (something you haven't seen before).Regards,
Goran Tomas
wgliradio said:
Bingo. One of the reasons we call the Ariane's L-R manipulation "control" rather than "enhancement."
"Enhancement" implies only adding to the signal, while "control" means you can not only add but also **reduce** dynamically according to the needs of individual program elements.
When you add anything to the L-R you are risking trouble, as the stereo subcarrier is much more fragile than the main channel. It was my opinion at the time, and I still hold to it, that designing a processor that ensures **consistency** in the L-R would be more useful than one that simply added more signal.
A couple of other things:
1) It's my experience that by reducing the low end of the L-R you can reduce some of the effects of multipath, as multipath usually manitsfests itself as IMD which is particulary noticeable when mids and bass intermodulate. For this reason, the Ariane (and the Ariane module in the DSPXtra) have the option to gently roll off low bass in the L-R signal path. Once you do this, you can be a bit more aggressive with the amount of L-R processing you use, if you choose. Or you can just sound better.
2) Manipulating the stereo effect by carefully adjusting the L-R gain dynamically does not generate any 'new' signals, and the end result has a very 'organic' feel to it. This is in contrast to methods that create a delayed copy of the L-R and re-sum that delayed signal back with the original L-R.
The Ariane design has proven, to my ears anyway, that it is possible to maintain the perceived stereo effect while actually **reducing** the average L-R level by basing the L-R control on RMS levels in a multiband environment. This can be a godsend in a multipath-prone listening environment.
But no matter what, garbage in may equal even MORE garbage out after processing. To the best of my knowledge, that's true for ANY processor. I've seen it demonstrated more than once that if you manipulate the L-R of a lousy MP3, more often than not you will be in for a very rude awakening.
Kind Regards,
David
PS: Sorry if this sounded like an Ariane ad... I'm more than a bit biased
David Reaves said:wgliradio said:
Bingo. One of the reasons we call the Ariane's L-R manipulation "control" rather than "enhancement."
"Enhancement" implies only adding to the signal, while "control" means you can not only add but also **reduce** dynamically according to the needs of individual program elements.
When you add anything to the L-R you are risking trouble, as the stereo subcarrier is much more fragile than the main channel. It was my opinion at the time, and I still hold to it, that designing a processor that ensures **consistency** in the L-R would be more useful than one that simply added more signal.
A couple of other things:
1) It's my experience that by reducing the low end of the L-R you can reduce some of the effects of multipath, as multipath usually manitsfests itself as IMD which is particulary noticeable when mids and bass intermodulate. For this reason, the Ariane (and the Ariane module in the DSPXtra) have the option to gently roll off low bass in the L-R signal path. Once you do this, you can be a bit more aggressive with the amount of L-R processing you use, if you choose. Or you can just sound better.
2) Manipulating the stereo effect by carefully adjusting the L-R gain dynamically does not generate any 'new' signals, and the end result has a very 'organic' feel to it. This is in contrast to methods that create a delayed copy of the L-R and re-sum that delayed signal back with the original L-R.
The Ariane design has proven, to my ears anyway, that it is possible to maintain the perceived stereo effect while actually **reducing** the average L-R level by basing the L-R control on RMS levels in a multiband environment. This can be a godsend in a multipath-prone listening environment.
But no matter what, garbage in may equal even MORE garbage out after processing. To the best of my knowledge, that's true for ANY processor. I've seen it demonstrated more than once that if you manipulate the L-R of a lousy MP3, more often than not you will be in for a very rude awakening.
Kind Regards,
David
PS: Sorry if this sounded like an Ariane ad... I'm more than a bit biased
Dave is right. I installed two digital Arianes at stations with multipath problems. In the default matrix mode the signals improved. Stereo enhancers and poor transmission systems do not create multipath, but they can sure make it worse.
wgliradio said:
In Europe, there must have been a really good StereoMaxx salesman a few years back. I have removed several when putting in DSPXtras and Sequels. While a few clients were reluctant to take them out, I don't know of anyone who has put one back in afterwards.
Kind Regards,
David
- Status