Looking through the AM transmitter setup documentation on the web site, I thought I'd pass along something I discovered back in the 70's...if you air a square wave through an AM transmitter that doesn't like square waves (like the Harris BC-500H did back then), watching the station modulation monitor will show when the tilt is minimized. The modulation percentage will dip when the tilt is flattened out...agrees perfectly with the scope method. Remember to do this test at 50% modulation & for brief periods at a time. Plate modulated transmitters do not enjoy this process!
-
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
NEW FM PROCESSOR
- Thread starter konbaasiang
- Start date
You're absolutely right, Goran -- even if everything else is phase linear, an LF phase rotator alone will screw up the squarewave. In fact, even a non-phase-linear high pass filter will!
For example the Omnia 6 does have phase linear multiband crossovers, but the 30hz high pass isn't.
It's all a tradeoff.. A 30hz phase linear brick wall high pass filter adds over 100ms of delay all on its own. A multiband crossover may be phase linear and low latency, but not if you want the B1 crossover much below 100hz. I see phase linearity as an all-or-nothing deal -- once you have even one stage phase linear (if the filters are long enough), you're probably beyond realtime latency, and may as well go all the way, to actually reap the benefit. Even the parametric EQs (such as the one for bass boost) is phase linear in BBP, and it's normally centered on 23 Hz. Imagine how much latency is added by that stage alone
.
In BBP i made a conscious decision to make sure it passes squarewaves symmetrically, so that it doesn't further damage contemporary program material. Part of that included a decision not to use LF phase rotation, but due to my specific clipper algorithm, I was able to get away with it; it wasn't much of a compromise. If you run dry male voice through, you actually see the asymmetry present on the output, but the important thing is that it sounds good.
I'm still thinking about low latency processing though -- it'll be an interesting challenge one of these days.
BobOnTheJob, that's a very good point. I actually have that way of measuring mentioned for FM, but didn't think about applying it to AM. I'll add it -- Thanks! The warning may come in handy too.
How about high frequency response flatness, is that usually not an issue, or do a lot of AM transmitters need compensation-EQ?
Best regards,
///Leif
For example the Omnia 6 does have phase linear multiband crossovers, but the 30hz high pass isn't.
It's all a tradeoff.. A 30hz phase linear brick wall high pass filter adds over 100ms of delay all on its own. A multiband crossover may be phase linear and low latency, but not if you want the B1 crossover much below 100hz. I see phase linearity as an all-or-nothing deal -- once you have even one stage phase linear (if the filters are long enough), you're probably beyond realtime latency, and may as well go all the way, to actually reap the benefit. Even the parametric EQs (such as the one for bass boost) is phase linear in BBP, and it's normally centered on 23 Hz. Imagine how much latency is added by that stage alone
.In BBP i made a conscious decision to make sure it passes squarewaves symmetrically, so that it doesn't further damage contemporary program material. Part of that included a decision not to use LF phase rotation, but due to my specific clipper algorithm, I was able to get away with it; it wasn't much of a compromise. If you run dry male voice through, you actually see the asymmetry present on the output, but the important thing is that it sounds good.
I'm still thinking about low latency processing though -- it'll be an interesting challenge one of these days.
BobOnTheJob, that's a very good point. I actually have that way of measuring mentioned for FM, but didn't think about applying it to AM. I'll add it -- Thanks! The warning may come in handy too.
How about high frequency response flatness, is that usually not an issue, or do a lot of AM transmitters need compensation-EQ?
Best regards,
///Leif
I would think many AMs could use it, but only half would benefit due to source material.
My AM modulator has a built-in bass and treble control section taken straight out of the RCA receiving tube manual with a 6SN7.
(Well, maybe I did make the bass control function at a lower f than the RCA design.)
It also has 3 inputs, line input, low level input for the reverb sidechain and carbon mike input ( for that authentic clumpy sound when desired).
I demoed and listened extensively for a few weeks, bought a used laptop for $100, demoed a few more weeks, and bought
BBP two days ago. As with most things, it's even sweeter when it's paid for.
Or is that my imagination, Leif?
I never even think about touching the tone controls on the modulator anymore, once I'm sure they're @ flat.
I recognize there is no point in trying to add and subtract with a fixed control when BBP has such versatile dynamic control.
That's amazing and very satisfying to someone who always wants to tweek in search of better radio performance.
I personally do not prefer use of the phase scrambler option. In the same way my old hardware click and pop eliminator
had to clip on sharp percussive hits, the scrambler must certainly change relationships in a way helpful to FM. but
I find the AM mono certainly should not use this option, as it audibly less clear with it enabled.
You'd never hear it unless your receiver is good to 16khz, though.
On the other hand the asymmetric option for AM is the pure sound of mega-power! Wanna sound like the huge 60's-70's
stations you remember?
I don't spend much money on my station, but I know you can't beat this for the money.
I will again state I believe this software makes audible details presumed lost in transcription(s) and not audible otherwise, and is worth
the money also for audio restoration, dubbing, and production work.
The presets with built in NR like "French Kiss" are amazingly effective at separating hiss from "real" data.
Buy it already, you've wasted money on far less useful products, haven't y'all?
Buy your station a little present for (holiday of choice).
My AM modulator has a built-in bass and treble control section taken straight out of the RCA receiving tube manual with a 6SN7.
(Well, maybe I did make the bass control function at a lower f than the RCA design.)
It also has 3 inputs, line input, low level input for the reverb sidechain and carbon mike input ( for that authentic clumpy sound when desired).
I demoed and listened extensively for a few weeks, bought a used laptop for $100, demoed a few more weeks, and bought
BBP two days ago. As with most things, it's even sweeter when it's paid for.
Or is that my imagination, Leif?
I never even think about touching the tone controls on the modulator anymore, once I'm sure they're @ flat.
I recognize there is no point in trying to add and subtract with a fixed control when BBP has such versatile dynamic control.
That's amazing and very satisfying to someone who always wants to tweek in search of better radio performance.
I personally do not prefer use of the phase scrambler option. In the same way my old hardware click and pop eliminator
had to clip on sharp percussive hits, the scrambler must certainly change relationships in a way helpful to FM. but
I find the AM mono certainly should not use this option, as it audibly less clear with it enabled.
You'd never hear it unless your receiver is good to 16khz, though.
On the other hand the asymmetric option for AM is the pure sound of mega-power! Wanna sound like the huge 60's-70's
stations you remember?
I don't spend much money on my station, but I know you can't beat this for the money.
I will again state I believe this software makes audible details presumed lost in transcription(s) and not audible otherwise, and is worth
the money also for audio restoration, dubbing, and production work.
The presets with built in NR like "French Kiss" are amazingly effective at separating hiss from "real" data.
Buy it already, you've wasted money on far less useful products, haven't y'all?
Buy your station a little present for (holiday of choice).
Hi Tom!
Always good to hear from you. I saw your purchase, thank you very much!
You know, with your transmitter having several inputs, and tone controls.. I would actually consider bypassing that stage completely. Analog EQ circuitry, even when set to flat, is not necessarily phase linear. The best, most accurate way to see what's going on would be to scope the RF output of the transmitter with a few of the test signals. A tightly processed signal is so extremely delicate that any little thing degrades it. The peak control, when looking at the scope, should be as tight as what you see on BBP's internal scope -- if it isn't, there's still gains to be made by simplifying the chain after BBP.
The phase scrambler makes a noticeable improvement on many things, but most noticeable is saxophone on top of bass. Try some Kenny G, for example. Or maybe even I.G.Y. by Donald Fagen. Even if these aren't part of your format, there's bound to be things you do play which would benefit equally. The phase scrambler does change the timbre slightly, but to my ears, it's *extremely* subtle, whereas the improvement on the things it addresses is enormous. Without it, what happens is that harmonic-rich signals after pre-emphasis get extremely peaky, and there's just nowhere for the peaks to go. This can cause extreme IM distortion. The phase scrambler spreads out the harmonics in time, ever so slightly, so that they do not build up to these tall low-energy peaks, but instead spread out sideways (on the oscilloscope). To me, it's a very worthwhile tradeoff -- implementing it was one of the many major breakthroughs I experienced during development.
Not everyone is sensitive to IM, but in my opinion, it never hurts to turn over some rocks to see what's crawling underneath, and make oneself aware of problems, training the ears in the process.. To me, this is how breakthroughs are made.
Many times in my audio processing career, I've had times when I think "Wow, this is as good it's going to get, it sounds PERFECT". Then I live with it for a while.. And then, I find something that starts to bug me. I ignore it for a while, repress it.. However, as time goes on, there come a point when what I heard becomes a real annoyance.. And then it's on again... The race for perfection. It never ends, you know.
Best regards,
///Leif
Always good to hear from you. I saw your purchase, thank you very much!
You know, with your transmitter having several inputs, and tone controls.. I would actually consider bypassing that stage completely. Analog EQ circuitry, even when set to flat, is not necessarily phase linear. The best, most accurate way to see what's going on would be to scope the RF output of the transmitter with a few of the test signals. A tightly processed signal is so extremely delicate that any little thing degrades it. The peak control, when looking at the scope, should be as tight as what you see on BBP's internal scope -- if it isn't, there's still gains to be made by simplifying the chain after BBP.
The phase scrambler makes a noticeable improvement on many things, but most noticeable is saxophone on top of bass. Try some Kenny G, for example. Or maybe even I.G.Y. by Donald Fagen. Even if these aren't part of your format, there's bound to be things you do play which would benefit equally. The phase scrambler does change the timbre slightly, but to my ears, it's *extremely* subtle, whereas the improvement on the things it addresses is enormous. Without it, what happens is that harmonic-rich signals after pre-emphasis get extremely peaky, and there's just nowhere for the peaks to go. This can cause extreme IM distortion. The phase scrambler spreads out the harmonics in time, ever so slightly, so that they do not build up to these tall low-energy peaks, but instead spread out sideways (on the oscilloscope). To me, it's a very worthwhile tradeoff -- implementing it was one of the many major breakthroughs I experienced during development.
Not everyone is sensitive to IM, but in my opinion, it never hurts to turn over some rocks to see what's crawling underneath, and make oneself aware of problems, training the ears in the process.. To me, this is how breakthroughs are made.
Many times in my audio processing career, I've had times when I think "Wow, this is as good it's going to get, it sounds PERFECT". Then I live with it for a while.. And then, I find something that starts to bug me. I ignore it for a while, repress it.. However, as time goes on, there come a point when what I heard becomes a real annoyance.. And then it's on again... The race for perfection. It never ends, you know.
Best regards,
///Leif
I hear exactly what you mean when I used the FM modulator in the car.
For FM the scrambler was much better, and I was listening in mono, where I did not expect to hear any difference.
If I were feeding a "real transmitter" with "real" power input ( and limitations) , I could run into problems, but as the tone control stage
is truly integral, and feeds directly to a control-grid van der bijl modulator, very linear, but almost can't be cut off in conduction, I'll
not disturb what has run reliably for 15 years now.
You can hear it clumping up eventually if over modulated, but it is very hard to cutoff (almost impossible) and create splatter on AM.
In other words it has a very large potential for +mod, depending on the ratio of the rf injection vs audio injection, among other things,
permitting the full pow of that 150% ratio. It has enough room to sound good because there's no iron or PWM circuitry
anywhere after the modulator. A properly running vacuum tube with no real work to do can be very, very linear.
In other words, in my case, there seems to be enough room for these peaks to go. There's no splash or splatter at all.
Modulation products ( not splat) to 15-16 khz out then totally clean.
Too bad it feeds only a 100mw output stage.
And yes, the difference in timbre with the scrambler is at the very limit of perceptibility as to the AM.
Couldn't really even call it detriment, far less difference than pre-emphasis settings, for sure.
I will warm up the HP454A tomorrow and have a look-see.
For FM the scrambler was much better, and I was listening in mono, where I did not expect to hear any difference.
If I were feeding a "real transmitter" with "real" power input ( and limitations) , I could run into problems, but as the tone control stage
is truly integral, and feeds directly to a control-grid van der bijl modulator, very linear, but almost can't be cut off in conduction, I'll
not disturb what has run reliably for 15 years now.
You can hear it clumping up eventually if over modulated, but it is very hard to cutoff (almost impossible) and create splatter on AM.
In other words it has a very large potential for +mod, depending on the ratio of the rf injection vs audio injection, among other things,
permitting the full pow of that 150% ratio. It has enough room to sound good because there's no iron or PWM circuitry
anywhere after the modulator. A properly running vacuum tube with no real work to do can be very, very linear.
In other words, in my case, there seems to be enough room for these peaks to go. There's no splash or splatter at all.
Modulation products ( not splat) to 15-16 khz out then totally clean.
Too bad it feeds only a 100mw output stage.
And yes, the difference in timbre with the scrambler is at the very limit of perceptibility as to the AM.
Couldn't really even call it detriment, far less difference than pre-emphasis settings, for sure.
I will warm up the HP454A tomorrow and have a look-see.
No worries, Goran.
I've probably given away too many secrets already -- it would probably have been a better idea to just answer "smoke and mirrors" when anyone asks what's inside, like Mr. Orban does.
In the end, the output (MPX or otherwise) is what counts, as this is the sound that will be on-air.
BBP's output audio stands up to intense scrutiny, and the end result (the on-air sound) speaks for itself. People have complained about the latency, and the lack of control (as if one could ask for more for $199 - sheesh!), but as for the sound quality, people are pretty much in agreement.
///Leif
I've probably given away too many secrets already -- it would probably have been a better idea to just answer "smoke and mirrors" when anyone asks what's inside, like Mr. Orban does
.In the end, the output (MPX or otherwise) is what counts, as this is the sound that will be on-air.
BBP's output audio stands up to intense scrutiny, and the end result (the on-air sound) speaks for itself. People have complained about the latency, and the lack of control (as if one could ask for more for $199 - sheesh!), but as for the sound quality, people are pretty much in agreement.
///Leif
Please forgive those of us who aren't happy unless we can play with every last parameter...we're radio engineers & we were just born that way. Hopefully the day will come when we can pay a little more for having the keys to the kingdom on both the personal and broadcast versions. As you say, at the end of the day, it's the sound that comes out of the radio that really matters and all indications are that you have that portion it squarely in the sweet spot.
Here's a question...I understand that the Broadcast version requires a fairly stout machine to operate properly. Will it run well on a lesser machine when using the Left and Right outputs rather than generating the Stereo Composite signal within the computer? Many of us have an old Orban 8000A laying around that we can feed with the sound cards' pre-emphasized L and R outputs via the 8000A test input jacks. Even at 30 plus years, the 8000A still makes a fine stereo generator. If the Broadcast version is a little less hungry in the L and R mode, it may open a few more doors for use.
Here's a question...I understand that the Broadcast version requires a fairly stout machine to operate properly. Will it run well on a lesser machine when using the Left and Right outputs rather than generating the Stereo Composite signal within the computer? Many of us have an old Orban 8000A laying around that we can feed with the sound cards' pre-emphasized L and R outputs via the 8000A test input jacks. Even at 30 plus years, the 8000A still makes a fine stereo generator. If the Broadcast version is a little less hungry in the L and R mode, it may open a few more doors for use.
konbaasiang said:Many times in my audio processing career, I've had times when I think "Wow, this is as good it's going to get, it sounds PERFECT". Then I live with it for a while.. And then, I find something that starts to bug me. I ignore it for a while, repress it.. However, as time goes on, there come a point when what I heard becomes a real annoyance.. And then it's on again... The race for perfection. It never ends, you know.
I feel the same way. I've always suffered with the audiophile ear syndrome to the point were everything but live music is "distorted". I've adapted over the years to realize you have to "pick your poison" when it comes to recorded sound and processing. Pumping definitely really bothers me and I can't listen to the IM that comes from unsophisticated clipping. SID and TIM drove me crazy when low slew rate "modern design" IC analog circuits were all you could get in new broadcast equipment.
Just give me a loud and clear processor that lets me be able listen to the music for more than 10 minutes without reaching for the off switch. It is no wonder so many young people don't listen to radio with the sound quality they get with an iPod with ear-buds. To me, processing should not get in the way of the music. It should limit it's dynamic range and provide dynamic EQ for a SN/ratio limited media that is generally played in a SN/ratio limited environment.
I downloaded your BB but my token white-box PC is too slow to run it. I do most of my work on a Power PC Mac.
Your product does look promising if adjustments are available to use it in other than monster-mash mode.
I agree with the other poster that asked about a way of running the program without the stereo generator.
You are apparently as good as the person that wrote the original algorithms for Lexicon and produced truly naturally sounding digital reverberation with the initial time delay gap delays and all (psychoacoustic stuff). He was a musician. The ears are the final judge.
Bob, the day will come . I understand completely. I figured it made sense to start with the basic version and move up from there, even though I know this is the opposite direction most developers take. This way there's an affordable product right away, which people can get to know. It has also given me extremely valuable feedback regarding what needs to be in the more advanced versions.
Stereo Encoding is a very simple task. Once the L/R signal is properly pre-emphasized, peak controlled and low pass filtered, all the stereo encoder has to do is:
Subtract Right from Left to yield the difference signal, multiply by 38khz carrier.
Add Right to Left to yield the mono signal.
Add Mono, Difference and 19 kHz carrier together.
That's all!
As such, taking this part out of the equation changes very little.. The hard part is the L/R clipper back-end.. This is what separates the men from the boys when it comes to broadcast processing -- front end stuff is completely subjective and debatable (some people even like pumping), but the clipper back-end isn't -- the one that is loudest and cleanest wins, final clipper distortion is an undesirable byproduct. Many have tried taking shortcuts in this area, and it's instantly audible when someone does. This is what uses 90% of the CPU power in breakaway broadcast.. Packing in that much audio in a limited-modulation carrier is not easy, especially not if you also suppress the distortion.
Whether it requires a fairly stout machine really depends on your definition. It uses 40% CPU power on a $49 CPU (Celeron E1200) -- I don't think this is unreasonable for a dedicated machine, which an audio processor really should be. Basically, with the motherboard, cpu and memory required to run the product being less expensive than the product itself, I don't see it as an issue. The CPU requirements may prevent it from test-running on older desktops though, which is a shame, but at least the demo clips are available so that people can hear what they're missing.
Speakerman, so true! Unfortunately my ears keep getting more and more sensitive to different things. There was a time (12 years ago) when I thought 160kbps MP3 sounded great! Not so anymore.. I've always been very sensitive to clipping distortion, but didn't used to be very sensitive to the IMD that comes from look-ahead limiters.. Not anymore!
It's not that I intentionally listen for artifacts, it just comes with the territory in my line of work, and there's no way to turn it off. It there's bad things going on, it sounds bad, and I can't enjoy it. If it sounds great, then I can just listen to the music being played.
I don't believe most people are this way (in fact I know the vast majority isn't), but I do believe that it's a good way for a processor designer to be. I feel pretty confident in saying that I am my biggest critic -- if it doesn't sound great, I send myself back to the drawing board.
Adjustments are absolutely available! There are several easy to use controls which each control several internal parameters, allowing you to process almost any way you like. The controls are Final Drive, Range, Power, Speed, Bass Boost/Cut and Bass Shape -- and there's a wide array of presets to start with.
If you want really clean multiband normalization suitable for audiophile listeners, try starting with Reference Settings, and adjust the controls to taste.
What's the CPU in your PC by the way? Maybe it's worth an inexpensive upgrade?
Best regards,
///Leif
. I understand completely. I figured it made sense to start with the basic version and move up from there, even though I know this is the opposite direction most developers take. This way there's an affordable product right away, which people can get to know. It has also given me extremely valuable feedback regarding what needs to be in the more advanced versions.Stereo Encoding is a very simple task. Once the L/R signal is properly pre-emphasized, peak controlled and low pass filtered, all the stereo encoder has to do is:
Subtract Right from Left to yield the difference signal, multiply by 38khz carrier.
Add Right to Left to yield the mono signal.
Add Mono, Difference and 19 kHz carrier together.
That's all!
As such, taking this part out of the equation changes very little.. The hard part is the L/R clipper back-end.. This is what separates the men from the boys when it comes to broadcast processing -- front end stuff is completely subjective and debatable (some people even like pumping), but the clipper back-end isn't -- the one that is loudest and cleanest wins, final clipper distortion is an undesirable byproduct. Many have tried taking shortcuts in this area, and it's instantly audible when someone does. This is what uses 90% of the CPU power in breakaway broadcast.. Packing in that much audio in a limited-modulation carrier is not easy, especially not if you also suppress the distortion.
Whether it requires a fairly stout machine really depends on your definition. It uses 40% CPU power on a $49 CPU (Celeron E1200) -- I don't think this is unreasonable for a dedicated machine, which an audio processor really should be. Basically, with the motherboard, cpu and memory required to run the product being less expensive than the product itself, I don't see it as an issue. The CPU requirements may prevent it from test-running on older desktops though, which is a shame, but at least the demo clips are available so that people can hear what they're missing.
Speakerman, so true! Unfortunately my ears keep getting more and more sensitive to different things. There was a time (12 years ago) when I thought 160kbps MP3 sounded great! Not so anymore.. I've always been very sensitive to clipping distortion, but didn't used to be very sensitive to the IMD that comes from look-ahead limiters.. Not anymore!
It's not that I intentionally listen for artifacts, it just comes with the territory in my line of work, and there's no way to turn it off. It there's bad things going on, it sounds bad, and I can't enjoy it. If it sounds great, then I can just listen to the music being played.
I don't believe most people are this way (in fact I know the vast majority isn't), but I do believe that it's a good way for a processor designer to be. I feel pretty confident in saying that I am my biggest critic -- if it doesn't sound great, I send myself back to the drawing board.
Adjustments are absolutely available! There are several easy to use controls which each control several internal parameters, allowing you to process almost any way you like. The controls are Final Drive, Range, Power, Speed, Bass Boost/Cut and Bass Shape -- and there's a wide array of presets to start with.
If you want really clean multiband normalization suitable for audiophile listeners, try starting with Reference Settings, and adjust the controls to taste.
What's the CPU in your PC by the way? Maybe it's worth an inexpensive upgrade?
Best regards,
///Leif
konbaasiang said:I've probably given away too many secrets already -- it would probably have been a better idea to just answer "smoke and mirrors" when anyone asks what's inside, like Mr. Orban does
Everyone puts out smoke and mirrors, everyone tries to make it look as they do things (much) better than the other guys, that they have something new and revolutionary, etc. It's whether they deliver on the promise, that makes it smoke or something real
I'm not saying that there are no innovations in the processing, but mostly these "new" things are simply different choices and compromises in the design. And each choice inherently has its set of advantages and disadvantages that you have to deal with.
Exactly! I completely agree with you. It's the real-life, preferably long term, on-air test that tells the story as it is. Opinions are subjective, often time biased, marketing is marketing, impression you get from what others say is exactly that, it's only where the rubber meets the road that you get the truth.
You would think that the price matters, but in my opinion it doesn't. You can drive it as low as you want, nothing changes...
Regards,
Goran Tomas
I was basing my assessment on the Hardware Requirements on the website. 3.4ghz or faster, duo core, dedicated Windows 2000 OS...that sounds far different than what you just described. I like the answer you just gave better...which one is the accurate?konbaasiang said:
Another question if I may...is it possible to have the station's automation source feeding the processor and concurrently have an audio console input to the processor (via the windows mixer) that will allow the local audio console to supply live programming? I keep running into the Pipeline term and wonder how I assign a sound card input to a Pipeline and allow two or more Pipelines to feed the Processor at the same time? It may be obvious once I install the product, but if I could be armed with that info up front, it would shorten the learning curve.
Your response time is simply amazing...do you ever sleep?
konbaasiang said:Speakerman, so true! Unfortunately my ears keep getting more and more sensitive to different things. There was a time (12 years ago) when I thought 160kbps MP3 sounded great! Not so anymore.. I've always been very sensitive to clipping distortion, but didn't used to be very sensitive to the IMD that comes from look-ahead limiters.. Not anymore!
It's not that I intentionally listen for artifacts, it just comes with the territory in my line of work, and there's no way to turn it off. It there's bad things going on, it sounds bad, and I can't enjoy it. If it sounds great, then I can just listen to the music being played.
I don't believe most people are this way (in fact I know the vast majority isn't), but I do believe that it's a good way for a processor designer to be. I feel pretty confident in saying that I am my biggest critic -- if it doesn't sound great, I send myself back to the drawing board.
Adjustments are absolutely available! There are several easy to use controls which each control several internal parameters, allowing you to process almost any way you like. The controls are Final Drive, Range, Power, Speed, Bass Boost/Cut and Bass Shape -- and there's a wide array of presets to start with.
If you want really clean multiband normalization suitable for audiophile listeners, try starting with Reference Settings, and adjust the controls to taste.
What's the CPU in your PC by the way? Maybe it's worth an inexpensive upgrade?
Best regards,
///Leif
The computer is an AMD Sempron 2200+ running at 1.6GHz with 172 MHz memory.
Haven't tried this, but what happens if/when XP restarts the computer after a mandatory upgrade or power outage? I don't see a "Start Breakaway When Windows Loads" check box. Will it auto start?
BobOnTheJob said:
It has for me, but I've put Breakaway in the startup program folder, along with Zara.
It saves all settings where you had them.
Beware the MS mandatory update that re-starts the computer up waiting for a user to log in, even though you may have set the
computer to boot fully up. If this happens your autostart programs are broken until you again re-select the preference for users to log on with no password.
It happened about two weeks ago to me on a W2000 machine.
O
OttoM
Guest
Re: Autologin loss
Huh? What update did that? Guess I didn't get that one. ;D
If your XP computer stops auto-logging on, click Start, then run, then type 'control userpasswords2' (without the quotes). You can then set up autologon by removing the checkbox next to "users must enter a username and password". Don't remember if it's the same procedure for W2K, however.
Tom Wells said:
Huh? What update did that? Guess I didn't get that one. ;D
If your XP computer stops auto-logging on, click Start, then run, then type 'control userpasswords2' (without the quotes). You can then set up autologon by removing the checkbox next to "users must enter a username and password". Don't remember if it's the same procedure for W2K, however.
Goran, I agree, everyone says the same thing. To my knowledge, however, I'm the first one to provide downloadable MPX to allow instant accurate comparison. This is a *huge* deal -- when searching for quality, it's quite different to compare a processor on the air to every other overprocessed, distorted station in a market, and comparing to playing high quality music on a computer the way one usually does. When listening / living with a processor for a while, one may start to get used to the distortion.. When going from a clean non-FM source directly to processed FM though, the distortion can be overwhelming. To me, this is one of the reasons why being able to play MPX on the computer is so important -- it changes the frame of reference, away from the current distorted landscape of radio, towards clean audio.
Indeed, price isn't important for real radio stations. In fact, I'm counting on this -- I couldn't make a living selling processors for $199, the volumes are simply too small. The challenge for me now is adding enough functionality in the advanced versions to make it worthwhile for those who can afford it. I've got more than a few aces up my sleeve -- I'm not worried. BBP is just the beginning.
Bob, it looks like I'm as much a victim of the gigahertz race as Intel themselves!
The description says 3.4 GHz P4 or faster.
A celeron E1200 (dual core 1.6 GHz) is $49 today, and it's easily twice as fast as a 3.4 GHz P4, because it's much more efficient per megahertz.
Intel's marketing used to focus on GHz. Higher number = better, right?
They were initially planning to ramp the Pentium 4 clock speed up to several gigahertz, but they simply weren't able to take it beyond 3.4 reliably. They were essentially forced to start over from scratch (with the Intel Core architecture) and focused on doing more work per mhz, instead of simply increasing the number of mhz. Unfortunately, the "more ghz is better" is deeply ingrained in all of us, and there's no way everyone could be expected to keep the performance of all these different cpu architectures in their heads.
In short, I can see now why my description is confusing -- thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will reword the hardware requirements, and make it more understandable -- with a few examples of CPUs and relative cpu usage.
Start Breakaway when Windows loads = Excellent idea! I will add this feature before 1.0.
I would not recommend having Auto-Update on in a closed, dedicated system. In fact, having Auto-Update negates the system being closed at all!
Bob, I do sleep -- probably when you're awake. I'm in Thailand, so I'm exactly 12 hours ahead of eastern american time.
Rob, excellent tip regarding "control userpasswords2"! Autologon is essential for setting up a dedicated audio-processing machine.
Speakerman, I looked up this CPU -- it was the lowest-end AMD when it was introduced in 2004. It's not in the ball park for running BBP, but the current generation lowest-end Intel CPU (Intel Celeron 420, 1.6 GHz single core) is! It runs BBP is cpu-optimized mode with approximately 70% cpu load. I wouldn't recommend cutting it this close when a dual-core CPU is only $10 more ($39 versus $49), but it does run. If you're interested, you could probably upgrade that token white box PC for about $100, including cpu, mainboard and memory.
Best regards,
///Leif
Indeed, price isn't important for real radio stations. In fact, I'm counting on this -- I couldn't make a living selling processors for $199, the volumes are simply too small. The challenge for me now is adding enough functionality in the advanced versions to make it worthwhile for those who can afford it. I've got more than a few aces up my sleeve -- I'm not worried
. BBP is just the beginning.Bob, it looks like I'm as much a victim of the gigahertz race as Intel themselves!
The description says 3.4 GHz P4 or faster.
A celeron E1200 (dual core 1.6 GHz) is $49 today, and it's easily twice as fast as a 3.4 GHz P4, because it's much more efficient per megahertz.
Intel's marketing used to focus on GHz. Higher number = better, right?
They were initially planning to ramp the Pentium 4 clock speed up to several gigahertz, but they simply weren't able to take it beyond 3.4 reliably. They were essentially forced to start over from scratch (with the Intel Core architecture) and focused on doing more work per mhz, instead of simply increasing the number of mhz. Unfortunately, the "more ghz is better" is deeply ingrained in all of us, and there's no way everyone could be expected to keep the performance of all these different cpu architectures in their heads
.In short, I can see now why my description is confusing -- thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will reword the hardware requirements, and make it more understandable -- with a few examples of CPUs and relative cpu usage.
Start Breakaway when Windows loads = Excellent idea! I will add this feature before 1.0.
I would not recommend having Auto-Update on in a closed, dedicated system. In fact, having Auto-Update negates the system being closed at all!
Bob, I do sleep -- probably when you're awake
. I'm in Thailand, so I'm exactly 12 hours ahead of eastern american time.Rob, excellent tip regarding "control userpasswords2"! Autologon is essential for setting up a dedicated audio-processing machine.
Speakerman, I looked up this CPU -- it was the lowest-end AMD when it was introduced in 2004. It's not in the ball park for running BBP, but the current generation lowest-end Intel CPU (Intel Celeron 420, 1.6 GHz single core) is! It runs BBP is cpu-optimized mode with approximately 70% cpu load. I wouldn't recommend cutting it this close when a dual-core CPU is only $10 more ($39 versus $49), but it does run. If you're interested, you could probably upgrade that token white box PC for about $100, including cpu, mainboard and memory.
Best regards,
///Leif
Re: Autologin loss
When I checked, it had the box checked for passwords. But it took me a while.
I can't begin to complain abut a lack of controls if I can make those available do what I want.
Especially after the asym option was added, and it makes my 100mw sound impossibly poweful.
Zara and BBP run on an old IBM thinkpad XP Pentium 1.86 Ghz 1G ram mono mode 40%, stereo 60% CPU (when I tested stereo for yucks).
It was the same procedure. I had just migrated Zara and BBP to the $100 laptop, and rebooted the old server remotely and I couldn''t reconnect.Rob Stutson said:
When I checked, it had the box checked for passwords.
But it took me a while.I can't begin to complain abut a lack of controls if I can make those available do what I want.
Especially after the asym option was added, and it makes my 100mw sound impossibly poweful.
Zara and BBP run on an old IBM thinkpad XP Pentium 1.86 Ghz 1G ram mono mode 40%, stereo 60% CPU (when I tested stereo for yucks).
Call me naive, but as a broadcast engineer who started in this game when stereo FM existed, but was the exception and when most of the exciters used all tubes, the concept of hooking a sound card available on eBay for $30 into the composite input of an FM exciter and having good stereo sound come out of the radio is mind blowing. I feel like climbing the tower & yelling "Look Mom, No Optimod!"...
Been around as long as you bob, $199.00 for the software and computer with a good sound card and as Jackie Gleason would say "and away we go".Spectacular performance.you are soooooo right.KILLER PROCESSING
- Status