KOST 103.5 FM Audio Processing in 1990

[yeoldeschool]

What am I seeing at 3:58 in this station tour video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJtmDd6VFE&t=238 (video disallows embedding)

Was the XT/2 chassis capable of being connected to an 8100 located far away (out of frame)? Or is there something in that rack substituting for the 8100 that the XT/2 could be magically combined with?

Or were they just playing with their rack for that camera shot as a wink to curious competition?

 

[davideduardo]

What am I seeing at 3:58 in this station tour video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJtmDd6VFE&t=238 (video disallows embedding)

Was the XT/2 chassis capable of being connected to an 8100 located far away (out of frame)? Or is there something in that rack substituting for the 8100 that the XT/2 could be magically combined with?

Or were they just playing with their rack for that camera shot as a wink to curious competition?

This brings up the KRTH "opaque glass cover with a lock" audio chain that I saw around 1992. You could barely see a few LED shadows, but all the gear was secret and could only be opened by the engineers. Proprietary audio chains often were hidden or behind a rack door.

 

[W1DAN-]

Well...

No the XT2 chassis had to be near the 8100. That looks like an Orban 8100 studio chassis. Back then in the ol' analog days you could put the 8100A compressor cards in the studio chassis and thus feed your STL with dense audio. At the transmitter site the audio would feed the 8100A's limiter and clipper circuits. Splitting the processing improved the apparent signal to noise ratio of the STL. When digital STL's came on the scene soon after, this was no longer needed.

Dan

 

[Dr. Bob]

Well...

No the XT2 chassis had to be near the 8100. That looks like an Orban 8100 studio chassis. Back then in the ol' analog days you could put the 8100A compressor cards in the studio chassis and thus feed your STL with dense audio. At the transmitter site the audio would feed the 8100A's limiter and clipper circuits. Splitting the processing improved the apparent signal to noise ratio of the STL. When digital STL's came on the scene soon after, this was no longer needed.

Dan

Definitely the 8100ST studio chassis in the video as the door is to the left of the meters. The 8100XT & 8100XT2 had the door to the right of the meters. Even if the video had shown a 8100/XT2, you still had no idea what was inside the box as there were many modifications to that system during that time including replacement cards (Digimod, Purple Processor, etc.) as well as internal modifications to both the 8100A and the XT2. Looking back, 1990, was near the pinnacle for analog processing.

 

[bigdonho]

One place I worked used a repurposed 8100 to process what fed their stream. Could this be the case?

 

[Dr. Bob]

One place I worked used a repurposed 8100 to process what fed their stream. Could this be the case?

There were no streams at the time of the video, 1990, but using an 8100ST for a stream would work. The 8100ST was a gain control device (both AGC & limiting) nominally used to protect a discrete STL from overload. Since it could increase the gain, it could also help overcome the problem of an STL that had a somewhat poor signal to noise ratio. Orban latter made the Co-Operator and the 8200ST which were both pretty much the same as an 8100ST but in single rack mount box.

 

[yeoldeschool]

Thanks, Dan and Dr. Bob! For some reason my mind completely failed to consider the possibility I was staring at a studio chassis.

As that video reveals (assuming either of you watched the whole thing), KOST was one of the L.A. stations back then that was meticulous about the polish of its on-air presentation and sound. To your knowledge, when this studio chassis arrangement was utilized, was the output of the STL ever sent through third-party boxes like Sequels before completing its journey into the transmitter-side 8100A and subsequent possible XT? Given their budget and careful crafting of their sound at the time, I would be stunned if KOST just had an Optimod running barefoot. But I don't know if there were any companion processors that would've been made, or could have been configured, for sitting in the middle of an 8100A (as "exposed" through using the ST). All of the popular companion hardware I know about from that period -- Arianes, Prisms, Compellors, Dominators, 222As, etc. -- went inline ahead of the 8100A in every non-ST setup I ever heard about.

Edit: Can either of you tell what's directly above the ST in that video? The resolution is pretty poor, but that would be the right spot to put something like a StereoMaxx.

Looking back, 1990, was near the pinnacle for analog processing.

You can say that again. What the 8100/XT2 did was magically pleasing analog coloration-wise, and when other magicians like Lynn Duke built their own modification sorcery on top of it coupled with carefully chosen and tuned pre-processing (David's reference to the legendary fogged KRTH cabinet), the outcome had mesmerizing results on all that old music.

I really, really, really wish Lynn would just appear out of thin air here on RD some day and post his complete, detailed recipe for what was going on in that cabinet. If the oldies format is fated to go away as a commercially viable one, I think the knowledge of how that oldies-specific processing sound was created needs to be prevented from being completely lost to the sands of time. It would be wonderful if enthusiasts with a love for that era's music were able to take knowledge like that and re-assemble the same airchain, hotrodded K-Earth style, for high quality, high bitrate oldies streams, so future generations of listeners could enjoy it the way L.A.'s lucky audience did for so many years.

 

[W1DAN-]

Hi:

Yes I watched the whole video, pretty well done, but low video resolution, possibly from 3/4" tape rather than Betacam. I cannot tell what the unit above the 8100ST is. And I would not be surprised if KOST radio used only an Optimod. Back then, there were not too many other boxes to add, and as you said the usual ones were the Compellor, Dominator, Prisms, etc. I do not know of folks putting gear between the studio chassis and the 8100A, and the manual did not recommend it. Some stations added an external composite clipper between the processor and the exciter.

If KOST was a light rock format, I only guess they kept their airchain simple and clean, like the BMX console, Tomcat carts and SM-5B mics-all good gear and high quality. In the late 1970s and 80s I worked at Schulke Beautiful Music WBYU-FM in New Orleans and we at first had an 8000A, then when it came out an 8100A. Nothing else. I also worked at Lite Rock WLTS-FM (which switched from Urban WAIL-FM) in the early to mid 1980s and we had Prisms ahead of an 8100A. We tested the XT2 but it was too busy.

It seems KOST had good personalities and a good long-term station format and image. That is more important than processing.

Thanks for linking this video. Fun to watch.

Dan

 

[Kelly A]

Thanks for linking this video. Fun to watch.

Indeed, very cringeworthy. I completely blocked out that people actually looked that way in the 80s.

 

[awsherrill]

All of the popular companion hardware I know about from that period -- Arianes, Prisms, Compellors, Dominators, 222As, etc. -- went inline ahead of the 8100A in every non-ST setup I ever heard about.

Edit: Can either of you tell what's directly above the ST in that video? The resolution is pretty poor, but that would be the right spot to put something like a StereoMaxx.

I can't tell what that box is either, but it is definitely not a StereoMaxx. Looks like it might be a custom panel of some sort. Marvin Collins might know more about it if he is still around.

I worked at a station where we installed one of Frank Foti's early efforts, the "Vigilante" (a hotrodded Aphex Dominator as I recall) in front of a stock 8100. The recommended installation was to run the Vigilante audio into the 8100's test jacks and flip the input switch to "test". This bypassed the front end of the 8100 so that the only active components were the clippers and the stereo generator. All of the heavy duty audio smashing and thrashing was done in the Vigilante.

An unanticipated side effect was that the front end of the 8100 was still powered up and you could still feed audio into it, although it was only making the meters move and not going anywhere otherwise. I had some fun cranking all the unused knobs to eleven and driving the gain reduction meters into the pins. "Yeah it's loud and it's legal, any other questions?"

 

[Kelly A]

"Yeah it's loud and it's legal, any other questions?"

Yes. just one. Are you intentionally driving TSL down?

 

[xkxrx]

In the video I noticed they were dubbing CD tracks onto carts. How soon after CD's arrived were stations playing the music directly from the CD and how did they cue it up?

 

[Kelly A]

In the video I noticed they were dubbing CD tracks onto carts. How soon after CD's arrived were stations playing the music directly from the CD and how did they cue it up?

It depends on the station. Some continued carting-up music, some replaced a series of cart machines with cart-like CD players from manufacturers like Denon or Radio Systems.

 

[davideduardo]

In the video I noticed they were dubbing CD tracks onto carts. How soon after CD's arrived were stations playing the music directly from the CD and how did they cue it up?

Soon after that was possible, stations moved to digital systems and the source material was put on hard drives.

One limitation in the interval period (late 80's up to mid-90's) was that stations that did not get promo CD singles had to deal with cranky CD players and multi-cut CDs. And CDs did not cue perfectly at all times.

A disadvantage when we went to digital systems like AudioVault was that hard drives were still very expensive and so we tended to use MP3 encoded digital files to save space. That was a step backwards, even if the MP3's were "uncompressed" (speaking of a total lie).

 

[davideduardo]

It depends on the station. Some continued carting-up music, some replaced a series of cart machines with cart-like CD players from manufacturers like Denon or Radio Systems.

And the Denon required a machine specific casing that held the CD. Added cost, but it was a useful system. The Denon's were the least prone to hitting the wrong cut.

 

[K.M. Richards]

KOST was one of the L.A. stations back then that was meticulous about the polish of its on-air presentation and sound.

That was part of Jhani Kaye's trademark tendency toward perfection. As the industry transitioned to music on hard drive, he told me "always put the sec tones on yourself ... don't trust anyone else to know where you want the segue to be". That's an example of how he was, and why he's still my friend after more than 40 years (because he has always been supportive of others who believe in the best on-air product possible).

 

[K.M. Richards]

And the Denon required a machine specific casing that held the CD. Added cost, but it was a useful system. The Denon's were the least prone to hitting the wrong cut.

I will testify to that, as my last on-air work in 1989 was at a station that had all but a handful of titles in its library on CD, and we used the Denon system.

The players looked like this:

 

[davideduardo]

That was part of Jhani Kaye's trademark tendency toward perfection. As the industry transitioned to music on hard drive, he told me "always put the sec tones on yourself ... don't trust anyone else to know where you want the segue to be". That's an example of how he was, and why he's still my friend after more than 40 years (because he has always been supportive of others who believe in the best on-air product possible).

He even had two cassette decks and cassettes of the tips and tails of every song. if he was unsure of a segue, he would play the two bits to see if he liked it.

 

[K.M. Richards]

He even had two cassette decks and cassettes of the tips and tails of every song. if he was unsure of a segue, he would play the two bits to see if he liked it.

Yep, that's my friend John, all right.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Thanks, Dan and Dr. Bob! For some reason my mind completely failed to consider the possibility I was staring at a studio chassis.

As that video reveals (assuming either of you watched the whole thing), KOST was one of the L.A. stations back then that was meticulous about the polish of its on-air presentation and sound. To your knowledge, when this studio chassis arrangement was utilized, was the output of the STL ever sent through third-party boxes like Sequels before completing its journey into the transmitter-side 8100A and subsequent possible XT? Given their budget and careful crafting of their sound at the time, I would be stunned if KOST just had an Optimod running barefoot. But I don't know if there were any companion processors that would've been made, or could have been configured, for sitting in the middle of an 8100A (as "exposed" through using the ST). All of the popular companion hardware I know about from that period -- Arianes, Prisms, Compellors, Dominators, 222As, etc. -- went inline ahead of the 8100A in every non-ST setup I ever heard about.

Edit: Can either of you tell what's directly above the ST in that video? The resolution is pretty poor, but that would be the right spot to put something like a StereoMaxx.


You can say that again. What the 8100/XT2 did was magically pleasing analog coloration-wise, and when other magicians like Lynn Duke built their own modification sorcery on top of it coupled with carefully chosen and tuned pre-processing (David's reference to the legendary fogged KRTH cabinet), the outcome had mesmerizing results on all that old music.

I really, really, really wish Lynn would just appear out of thin air here on RD some day and post his complete, detailed recipe for what was going on in that cabinet. If the oldies format is fated to go away as a commercially viable one, I think the knowledge of how that oldies-specific processing sound was created needs to be prevented from being completely lost to the sands of time. It would be wonderful if enthusiasts with a love for that era's music were able to take knowledge like that and re-assemble the same airchain, hotrodded K-Earth style, for high quality, high bitrate oldies streams, so future generations of listeners could enjoy it the way L.A.'s lucky audience did for so many years.

I can’t tell what the box above the 8100ST is either but, more likely than not, it was a custom box or an off the shelf box that was installed in another chassis to hide it. Sure, you could run another box between the 8100ST and the “back end” processing. Lots of folks were experimenting & using stereo enhancement around that time and the most typical for a stereo enhancer was between the AGC and the limiters. I know the Orban 222 and the StereoMaxx were both available then.

The only reason to have an 8100ST is for an STL that had separate left & right channels. In that case, the remainder of the processing would be at the transmitter and you didn’t have to worry about overshoot on a composite microwave. The downside it that you would have had to travel to the transmitter to make adjustments. T1 links were available around that time. The station I was with used a QEI Cat-Link, which could do composite on a T1 but, IIRC, Intraplex boxes were also available then although they didn’t do composite. Most major market stations in 1990 would have both microwave and either stereo analog lines or a T1 for the STL.

Once it got to the transmitter, the processing could have been anything.