New Omnia One.FM for Sale...

[whit979]

No disrespect to Whit but why are we, after 3 or 4 threads, still talking about one person's subjective choice of a processor? Again no disrespect to Whit, but especially knowing his opinions changed from Orban to Omnia to Vorsis and back to Omnia and in all likelihood will change again?


Regards,
Goran Tomas

I don't take it as disrespect, Goran, and in truth a lot of it had to do with simply learning the processes by which these units work, their strong points and weak points. I agree that any of those brands can be made to sound good — but the primary selling points for the Omnia.One are its ease of use and flexibility with regard to sound customization. For $3,000, you're going to have to forego some pretty important options in some of the competing products, or have to deal with nuances that may or may not be appropriate for every market. I think that for most U.S. stations in smaller markets, the Omnia.One is a great choice. We liked it particularly because one unit can be switched between AM and FM, so it became our primary FM processor and also was a backup AM processor in the event that it gave out (which it never did, but it's there if they need it). I found the Omnia.One to be the least confining option, considering that we were on a budget.

 

[FFoti1]

No disrespect to Whit but why are we, after 3 or 4 threads, still talking about one person's subjective choice of a processor? Again no disrespect to Whit, but especially knowing his opinions changed from Orban to Omnia to Vorsis and back to Omnia and in all likelihood will change again?


Regards,
Goran Tomas

Goran,

The bigger question is, why does Mike Erickson keep bringing up a topic/thread that's a non-issue, as it was very easily rectified long ago? He seems to have this need to carry on about something that occurred years ago, and just because our company did not feel his comments - at the time - were proven, he holds it against the product.

Maybe it's time for Mike to give it a rest on this topic. His rants against the product far exceed the number of references to the thread you mention, and those rants are non-issues.

-Frank Foti

 

[wgliradio]

Goran,

The bigger question is, why does Mike Erickson keep bringing up a topic/thread that's a non-issue, as it was very easily rectified long ago? He seems to have this need to carry on about something that occurred years ago, and just because our company did not feel his comments - at the time - were proven, he holds it against the product.

Maybe it's time for Mike to give it a rest on this topic. His rants against the product far exceed the number of references to the thread you mention, and those rants are non-issues.

-Frank Foti

And if one scrolls thru this thread, they can see who brought up Whit first.

I'll make it easy, it doesn't matter to me how much of something is sold or what major market station is using or all the other nonsense. If units moved is the measuring point of a good product for some, that's fine Radio is stuck in the sameness: formats, promotions, marketing, ideas, sound.

Those who want to break out of the mold can contact me, they know how and have. I've never walked away for a facility that needed processing help not getting the job done. I'm very proud of that.

I'm also glad that some of the greatest programmers I have met... and designers of some cool processing equipment have valued my opinion along the way. It is humbling when your ideas help mold and shape a tool used by many and heard by millions.

 

[cgould]

Yes, this was after Cornelius fixed what Team Telos couldn't get right (even though I still have the emails I sent to Team Telos describing the problems Cornelius fixed almost a year later)

Here's a stroll down memory lane... remember, there are two sides to every story

http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=126190.0

Yes...and here's my side...

I've been watching this debate back and forth from the sidelines since ti started, and really don't wish to get dragged down in whatever the ultimate agenda is here, but I do want to respond since my name keeps being brought up to seemingly prove a point over some kind of controversy over the Omnia.One preset shanges.

No, I did not change any of the algorithms. The way the Omnia products are implemented, making code changes
is impossible for an outsider to accomplish (although a "friend of the family" at the time many of those were created, I still was an outsider).

I changed several parameters that involve "tuning" the way many of the existing stages work. This means getting under the hood, and into the tuning sections -- which I believe you do know about, Mike so you could have easily done many of the same changes yourself. It wasn't rocket science for anyone who is a processing expert.

I simply wanted to provide options for those looking for a different sound from a very familiar product.

To steal a line from you, I wanted to help people break out of the cycle of sameness.

As a side note:

I blame this "sameness" syndrome not the fault of the the audio processor, but on the mentality of many programmers who have been taught to imitate others rather than strike out and do something new. Rather than trying to craft a new sound for a new station in a market, more often than not most want to sound like another station they have heard, or another one in the market.

Back to the topic at hand now...

I could have bitched and bitched at Frank to make these changes I wanted to have in the Omnia.One and Omnia.6 so I could provide the sound I wanted to my clients at the time. What I decided to do was to try a more adventurous route, and do it for myself.

What happened after that was cool as Frank and Mark Manolio very quickly found out about it from Omnia users, and both of them would routinely send folks my way when there was a need for something really unique for their Omnias...and that was a great feeling!

This work lead me to peruse my own ideas, and was just a piece of many parts that lead me to formally get back into processor design, and start implementing new ideas in DSP.

Once that happened, I found my self in a whirlwind situation that landed me in the driver's seat (so to speak) here at Omnia working on new Omnia designs.

Point to all this is if Frank was as truly afraid of people with new ideas that are radically different from his (which seems to be the point of your argument), he would have found a way to take me out of the picture a long time ago, rather than bringing me into the family to do the same here. Believe me, when you see what I've been working on, you will see that "it ain't no ordinary Omnia product..."

I'm not exactly sure what the goal of your argument is, and to be frank with you, I don't care. But I felt it necessary to say my piece on it as I am constantly being brought up on the fringes of it.

I'm glad you liked my tweaks...its a result of someone with a different view (or a different take) on an existing product, and that view became officially endorsed by the manufacturer in more than one way...I find that incredibly flexible for ANY American based company these days, and am grateful.

This is all I have to say on the subject...as far as I'm concerned...the topic of me fixing a problem with the Omnia.One is closed.

To recap:

I had a different idea, and decided to put my money where my mouth is, and do something about it myself. The rewards so far, are more than I could have imagined just a few short years ago...

Thank you to all who put up with this long post!

Kindest Regards,

Cornelius

 

[wgliradio]

I had no argument until Frank brought up Whit.

As for the tweaks, I'd have loved to do my own and in fact want to learn more about how to backdoor these products to create more of what I want.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

I really can't let this discussion end. I just want ANOTHER OMNIA One or two or three or all the stations I work with.

The non com groups I work with had used thrown away processors for YEARS. Anything someone had let go we got. We REALLY wanted to buy a 3 then a 5 or 6. No money for it. I can give you the list but they've all been named.

And being really displeased with other products, finally had settled on my favorite of the pack, a Foti product using an LED readout and several ways to adjust the audio. Pre Omnia.

I used my money to buy them a One.

Having worked in major markets and being used to great audio our little station was saddled with skunk audio until we got the older Foti product.

Having retired it and replacing it with the One we found more overall loudness, better clipping functions, and immediately wanted more for our other stations. I have to tell you the audio sounds better than I have EVER heard it before.

Easy to set up. It did take me a few months to get it into my favorite spot and I haven't changed the processing since.

Just as the 8000 brought a major change to FM in the 70's and 80's this "low priced" product has made a change in the regularly noted crappy audio of stations that can't afford the 5 or 6 or comparable Orban product.

 

[gtomas]

As for the tweaks, I'd have loved to do my own and in fact want to learn more about how to backdoor these products to create more of what I want.

Just don't expect this to be a magic wand... Yes, you can tweak more parameters of the existing algorithms than it is available through the front panel, which will change the sound somewhat from the factory presets. But you can't get away from the underlying algorithm, if that proves to be your problem. It will still have the same "character", the way it reacts to audio and the way it tends to sound. The layout of the processing stages will be the same as well as the internal design of those individual stages. To change the character and make the processor act and sound significantly different, you really need to go down to the design level and change the algorithm. Which requires a lot of technical knowledge on how processing works, on acoustics, circuit desing... And then it requires knowledge on digital signal processing, particular DSP platform used as well as programming, testing the algorithms etc. I'm not trying to mystify it, just saying it's not something easy to do, which is why you don't see people doing DSP processors for hobby. It requires a lot of diverse knowledge, money for the development platforms, design, testing and analyzing tools, many working hours to make it work, which in the end translates to a number of people working to make it happen.

Interestingly, all that work can push you away from listening. And you need to have a flexibility to hear other people's taste in processing, which is different from yours. Which is why I think manufacturers should listen more to the people who do a lot of listening and playing with processors, like yourself. But there's a whole set of problems there.. From the users who think they know how something can be improved, but don't really understand all the limitations and problems involved. Or the vanity factor, that none of us can get away from, where we don't like someone else to telling us something is not good or could be done better (unless we agree with that assessment in the first place). Some manufacturers are worried about the public perception of this as well. You know, if I admit there's something lacking, not as good as it could be, how does that make me look to the potential customers? So there are some who silently or publicly take it on board and work to improve the products, some deny it and try hard to silence the whistle-blowers, others don't discuss at all or simply ignore... Pick your poison.

I got a little carried away - I hope you will be able to make the Omnia sound the way you want with the hidden parameters tweaking I have a few satisfied customers running my tweaked presets for O-3fmt and O-6 over factory ones. Good luck!


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[FFoti1]

I had no argument until Frank brought up Whit.

As for the tweaks, I'd have loved to do my own and in fact want to learn more about how to backdoor these products to create more of what I want.

Short memory Mike....

You've brought up your issues with Omnia.One, at every chance possible. Long, after any supposed issues were dealt with. If we used that same thought process, guess we should still be hammering on another company's product that DID generate aliasing distortion, due to poor design. But, life moves on, and products evolve. Maybe I should still be hammering away at Z-100's "worst-to-first" accomplishment back in 1983!

Whit's thread more than disproves your comments. Hence my reason for refreshing your memory. Call it an offset, if you will.

When you were first involved with Omnia.One, we'd have been happy to get you 'creative' access, but you told me you had to work on another project.

-Frank Foti

 

[FFoti1]

Just don't expect this to be a magic wand... Yes, you can tweak more parameters of the existing algorithms than it is available through the front panel, which will change the sound somewhat from the factory presets. But you can't get away from the underlying algorithm, if that proves to be your problem. It will still have the same "character", the way it reacts to audio and the way it tends to sound. The layout of the processing stages will be the same as well as the internal design of those individual stages. To change the character and make the processor act and sound significantly different, you really need to go down to the design level and change the algorithm. Which requires a lot of technical knowledge on how processing works, on acoustics, circuit desing... And then it requires knowledge on digital signal processing, particular DSP platform used as well as programming, testing the algorithms etc. I'm not trying to mystify it, just saying it's not something easy to do, which is why you don't see people doing DSP processors for hobby. It requires a lot of diverse knowledge, money for the development platforms, design, testing and analyzing tools, many working hours to make it work, which in the end translates to a number of people working to make it happen.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

Goran,

Well written reply!

Regarding the internal algo stuff: There are some hooks, in various designs, that do enable changes to the topology, and architecture, of the algorithm. We do have that in some of our stuff. But, as you say, unless the person tweaking, knows and understands what the intent is, they can get in more trouble, if they're not careful. Hence the reason, it's kept more secret than not!

-Frank Foti

 

[wgliradio]

Short memory Mike....

You've brought up your issues with Omnia.One, at every chance possible. Long, after any supposed issues were dealt with. If we used that same thought process, guess we should still be hammering on another company's product that DID generate aliasing distortion, due to poor design. But, life moves on, and products evolve. Maybe I should still be hammering away at Z-100's "worst-to-first" accomplishment back in 1983!

Whit's thread more than disproves your comments. Hence my reason for refreshing your memory. Call it an offset, if you will.

When you were first involved with Omnia.One, we'd have been happy to get you 'creative' access, but you told me you had to work on another project.

-Frank Foti

Requests made for more creative access did not return replies. I know, I kept the emails I sent.

With the growing frustration, I decided that it was best to move on since your silence drove home the fact that my ideas and your ideas were too different and I didn't see any more evolution with what was there. And that's fine, at the end of the day each of us has to answer for the sound they've created.

One final note.... the ironic thing is that the sound of Z-100 is what drew me to discover why records sounded different on the radio. This was at the age of 9. Since then, I've been fortunate enough to have operated and evaluated every major (and many minor... with few exceptions) processor developed over the past 30 years and have drawn my own conclusions.

As for my argument, I was talking on this thread alone.

 

[RealityCheckr]

I still don't get it Mike.

You are the first to praise the 8100 as a viable both in the 21st century. But, I am willing to bet that you don't 8100's with no mods and nothing before or after. It seems likely you have spent many man-months learning it, and learning how to mod it. And I bet you learned quite a bit about processing doing so

Which all well and good, it seems likely that you did. So first of all, if you have modded it does it really "count". Probably in the pre-digital era it does - not only modding the 8100 but also discovering what boxes to put before or after it to give it a specific sound.

Now fast forward to the 21'st century. You make flat out assertions that the "8100 is better than x". That's not true. If you claimed that you can make a chain that includes an 8100 play with the best of them then at least your claim is plausible.

It still does not address whether or not you have put in the time to understand other boxes as well as you understood the analog gear. And it does not address that if you are so good with the 8100 et al why you suddenly then are bragging about chains with 8400s or 9500s. As if that wasn't bizarre enough, you have never hinted at how long you have played with various digital boxes.

Digital Processing has a mind boggling amount of control. But it requires that you learn it. And because it is not linked to hardware per se, the existing "language of processing" is inadequate.

Most of the criticism about digital boxes revolves around pre-sets. The presets are a relatively small subset of the nearly infinite variations these boxes are capable. Add on top of that the fact there are huge variations in style, and of course the PD's desires. But if you want to go further you will need to learn the box in particular.

Now if you want to complain about sameness, feel free, but don't blame it on the processors. Mostly it is because most processors are hastily installed and most engineers do not have the time nor the interest in a lot of tweaking. And yes, since the modern processors allow more tweaking than ever perhaps they make things worse. But as you have learned, presets by different people sound different. Mark, Corny, and Frank all have there own style and there own understanding of what engineers and PD's want.

One more thing - your constant public assertions that digital boxes are not as good as the 8100 is not a good way to get the support people (not to mention the designers) to listen very hard to your comments. If some bum on the street tells you "man your house is on fire" you probably won't rush home to check.

 

[FFoti1]

Requests made for more creative access did not return replies. I know, I kept the emails I sent.

Mike,

Something doesn't add up. Unless your messages got eaten by our company's barracuda box, I never got them. If you felt strong enough about wishing for me to get you the info, there's always the phone.

Historically, our company...myself included...has taken the input of many end-users, and done stuff with it. In some cases, changes came about. In others, presets, and topology even changed. I don't accept your comment that I was deaf to your suggestions. I have adapted our stuff to the desires of many, and still doing so.

-Frank Foti

 

[cgould]

Mike,

Check your e-mails from a few months back...you asked me about how to get into the "back door", and
I gave you the info on one way to do it. I did not hear back from you at all after that, and now you're posting
that we've ignored your request....

-Corny

 

[wgliradio]

Mike,

Check your e-mails from a few months back...you asked me about how to get into the "back door", and
I gave you the info on one way to do it. I did not hear back from you at all after that, and now you're posting
that we've ignored your request....

-Corny

I know and have. I was referring to the time before you were with Telos.

 

[wgliradio]

I still don't get it Mike.

You are the first to praise the 8100 as a viable both in the 21st century. But, I am willing to bet that you don't 8100's with no mods and nothing before or after. It seems likely you have spent many man-months learning it, and learning how to mod it. And I bet you learned quite a bit about processing doing so

Which all well and good, it seems likely that you did. So first of all, if you have modded it does it really "count". Probably in the pre-digital era it does - not only modding the 8100 but also discovering what boxes to put before or after it to give it a specific sound.

Now fast forward to the 21'st century. You make flat out assertions that the "8100 is better than x". That's not true. If you claimed that you can make a chain that includes an 8100 play with the best of them then at least your claim is plausible.

===

One more thing - your constant public assertions that digital boxes are not as good as the 8100 is not a good way to get the support people (not to mention the designers) to listen very hard to your comments. If some bum on the street tells you "man your house is on fire" you probably won't rush home to check.

Considering the fact that I run two 8500's (and I have a choice over what I put on the air in NYC), I wouldn't say your statement is entirely true. There are a few 8100's lying around I could slap on the air, but the 8500 is functional, has the HD diversity delay and, with a few tricks, emulates the sound of an 8100/XT2 with better peak control for a given modulation (which means, obviously, more loudness) and much clearer highs. But this was a box I took great pains to adjust every parameter to get the most out of it, including many hours on the 81st floor on my own time, something other engineers may not have the time for (and I don't either, but I make personal time for it because it is important to me). No factory preset from Orban comes close to what I am running and I am humbled by those who have taken time to tell me how great they think it sounds.


Yes, alot of it is how you set it, but more important is: does the box have the architecture and sonic design to do what you want it to... with my 15 years of setting many different types of airchains and running mockups at home, I think I may know a thing or two.

I'll question anything about my abilities in any part of this field, but I stand by my processing and what I have done to learn and master the art of creating a radio station that will draw you in sonically.

If support people and engineers don't want to listen, nothing I can do.

 

[RealityCheckr]

Yeah, huh?

Or you could buy a real processor

http://cgi.ebay.com/ORBAN-OPTIMOD-8...in_0?hash=item414928d98f&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

If I had 2k to spend, it wouldn't be on the ONE, which is much improved over the 3, but not there for me (cue: "but we've sold so many you must be wrong and we are right").

Get a Bill Sacks refurbed 8100 and really sound good!

 

[Voiceguy123]

If I may chime in here, to come to Mike's defense (although I do not condone his incessant, apparent bashing of the Foti boxes and for that matter DSP based processing in general, If you have never heard an 8100/XT2 combo, or a 9100, custom recapped, re-chipped and thoroughly re-worked by Bill and Kim Sacks, you're missing his point. These refurbished boxes are an absolute joy.

I get so tired of trying to explain to people that ANALOG is NOT dead yet. There is plenty of life left in these older boxes, and when properly restored they can provide a certain sound that is extremely hard to duplicate even with the best of the digital boxes. I truly believe that the convenience of 'hook it up, set it and forget it' has done radio broadcasting a major disservice. I suppose that goes along with the dumbing down of society's ears with the advent of hard clip mastering, bad engineering practice in recording, and lossy digital encoding. After all, if you shock the monkey enough, Although he may not enjoy it, he will eventually get used to it and at that point it may not seem so bad. Dig out those old ABC records Steely Dan releases, plop them on the platter of a properly set up turntable, and take a listen. It was all done in analog- and it sounds fantastic!

 

[wgliradio]

If I may chime in here, to come to Mike's defense (although I do not condone his incessant, apparent bashing of the Foti boxes and for that matter DSP based processing in general, If you have never heard an 8100/XT2 combo, or a 9100, custom recapped, re-chipped and thoroughly re-worked by Bill and Kim Sacks, you're missing his point. These refurbished boxes are an absolute joy.

I'm not totally against DSP, I think I have stated in this post I run many DSP-based processors and one of my all time favorite devices (Ariane Sequal) is DSP.

I just like to cut thru the hype.

 

[wgliradio]

Yeah, huh?

Or you could buy a real processor

http://cgi.ebay.com/ORBAN-OPTIMOD-8...in_0?hash=item414928d98f&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

If I had 2k to spend, it wouldn't be on the ONE, which is much improved over the 3, but not there for me (cue: "but we've sold so many you must be wrong and we are right").

Get a Bill Sacks refurbed 8100 and really sound good!

Because I don't like one flavor of processor means I hate all DSP based processors? I'll repeat, if I needed to spend money to either refurbish an 8100 or buy an Omnia ONE, I know what I would do, because I have both and know the potential of each. I don't like the Omnia sound for over the air broadcast, OK? Even my review of the ONE dropped hints that I thought the box needed improvement on the FM side. I was very careful when I wrote that article (and thought it was funny to see it in the Telos NOW booklet at NAB).

 

[Voiceguy123]

If I may chime in here, to come to Mike's defense (although I do not condone his incessant, apparent bashing of the Foti boxes and for that matter DSP based processing in general, If you have never heard an 8100/XT2 combo, or a 9100, custom recapped, re-chipped and thoroughly re-worked by Bill and Kim Sacks, you're missing his point. These refurbished boxes are an absolute joy.

I'm not totally against DSP, I think I have stated in this post I run many DSP-based processors and one of my all time favorite devices (Ariane Sequal) is DSP.

I just like to cut thru the hype.

Agreed and well said. I have to say that for certain formats the Omnia sound is beautiful. For the more active formats, not always so much. In most cases I really don't care for the sound, at least the way most are set up. Cornelius has introduced some very good options as presets for the 'set it and forget it' mentality, but out of all the broadcast engineers out here, how many have gone to the trouble to implement them and then take the time to tweak them to meet conditions? Herein lies a major crux of the problem. Learned behavior is learned behavior, and as it becomes ever more obvious that, in the grand scheme of things, people really don't give a flying one... the passion of audio processing takes a further and further back seat as audio equipment becomes crappier, receivers become cheaper, and as all this cheap plastic Chinese junk becomes more an more accepted by the general public, any relatively decent equipment becomes increasingly more prohibitively expensive and commercial recordings are mastered to sound like loud noise rather than music...

What can you do? But like you, I like to cut through the hype, too :-D