New Toys For Processing Heads

[wgliradio]

From BW: their line of audio processors are now being offered in the US thru Audemat-Aztec, making distribution alot easier. Congrats to Scott.. a great sounding box should get more exposure.

http://www.audemat-aztec.com/products/Audio processing/Audio Processors Silver/

From Omnia: The Omnia-One has made a splash on the homepage and the Omnia 8.x crams 8 multiband processors in one device. That sounds cool.

http://www.omniaaudio.com

From Orban: The 9300 is a mono only option for AM station not doing stereo or HD. Has the feature set of the 9400 without the expense

http://www.orban.com/products/radio/am/9300/

 

[Mike M]

Add Wheatstone to the list.

http://www.vorsis.com

The AP-1000 has 31 bands of limiting and clipping

 

[wgliradio]

That was actually introduced last year at NAB. I demo'ed the Vorsis HD-P3 which has very poor control over the audio. I am not too excited about what I have heard so far from Wheatstone.

However, these are new

http://vorsis.com/fm5.html
http://vorsis.com/am5.html

But most likely vaporware

 

[jcolletta275]

31 BANDS? Good grief! Who would ever need that much control over their audio in a broadcast setting? I'd think with that much to fiddle around with, it'd be all too easy to turn the audio into pure mush! Geez!

 

[gtomas]

From Omnia: The Omnia-One has made a splash on the homepage

Interesting. It's been exactly one year since they announced it... No manual though, no pictures and no clips to hear the benefits of their Sensus technology. No FM version either. Is the $2995 price I read somewhere on the web correct?

and the Omnia 8.x crams 8 multiband processors in one device. That sounds cool.

It will be useful for Axia installations, no doubt. I'd probably want more powerful processing than Omnia-3net for some of the applications, though. Hope they'll offer other algorithms inside as well.

But running the Omnia-6 on one of the stations, I really wish they made some additions/improvements there Orban, for example, has new software version for 8500 with improved matrix AGC and the ability to adjust FM and HD paths separately...

From BW: their line of audio processors are now being offered in the US thru Audemat-Aztec, making distribution alot easier. Congrats to Scott.. a great sounding box should get more exposure.

http://www.audemat-aztec.com/products/Audio processing/Audio Processors Silver/

They also have DSPXmini-HD, which with 4-band AGC/limiter from DSPX and look-ahead limiter I think will provide quite capable processing for HD-2 channels and webstreaming. And only $1750.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[rorban]

From Orban: The 9300 is a mono only option for AM station not doing stereo or HD. Has the feature set of the 9400 without the expense

http://www.orban.com/products/radio/am/9300/

The 9300 is really the successor to the 9200, adding an improved AGC, a more powerful equalizer, and the usual control and communication features of our current line of processors (Ethernet connectivity; automation by time of day). The 9300 uses the 9200's 5-band and clipper system, resulting in low input/output delay. In turn, the 9200 was derived from a highly modified Optimod-FM 8200 code base.

The 9400, on the other hand, was derived from the 8400 code base, so it has an "intelligent clipping distortion controller" that the 9300 does not. This permits 9400-processed speech to remain very clean even when average modulation levels are pushed to the point where the 9200/9300 would produce a certain amount of audible clipping distortion. The 9400 therefore remains Orban's top of the line processor even for mono analog AM stations, although we believe that the 9300 is a fine choice for those whose budgets cannot accommodate the 9400.

Bob Orban

 

[fm-engineer]

I have several stations using 8300 and 5300 Optimods. Their AGC's are great even with terrible DJ level controls. I have a rocker using the Omnia 6 with a digital Ariane in front. The Ariane, IMHO, is a much better AGC than the stock flavor from Omnia. But for wide or two-band, nothing beats the Optimod AGC's. I like the sound of an Omnia on some formats, but if I had to choose my favorite right now it would have to be the 8300 Optimod. No fancy color screen or jog wheels, but it sounds great on any format. The MX presets reduce distortion at amazing levels. I'm not sure how they will improve on the current AGC, but so many things are possible with digital. A nearby station just purchased a DSPX and invited me over for the install. It will be fun to finally get to hear one.

From Omnia: The Omnia-One has made a splash on the homepage

Interesting. It's been exactly one year since they announced it... No manual though, no pictures and no clips to hear the benefits of their Sensus technology. No FM version either. Is the $2995 price I read somewhere on the web correct?

and the Omnia 8.x crams 8 multiband processors in one device. That sounds cool.

It will be useful for Axia installations, no doubt. I'd probably want more powerful processing than Omnia-3net for some of the applications, though. Hope they'll offer other algorithms inside as well.

But running the Omnia-6 on one of the stations, I really wish they made some additions/improvements there Orban, for example, has new software version for 8500 with improved matrix AGC and the ability to adjust FM and HD paths separately...

From BW: their line of audio processors are now being offered in the US thru Audemat-Aztec, making distribution alot easier. Congrats to Scott.. a great sounding box should get more exposure.

http://www.audemat-aztec.com/products/Audio processing/Audio Processors Silver/

They also have DSPXmini-HD, which with 4-band AGC/limiter from DSPX and look-ahead limiter I think will provide quite capable processing for HD-2 channels and webstreaming. And only $1750.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[menotti1]

you will like the DSP_X.Goran Thomas has a good preset called GT Hot that i am using on a FM.if interested shoot us a email address and one of us will get it to you.

 

[wgliradio]

The 9300 is really the successor to the 9200, adding an improved AGC, a more powerful equalizer, and the usual control and communication features of our current line of processors (Ethernet connectivity; automation by time of day). The 9300 uses the 9200's 5-band and clipper system, resulting in low input/output delay. In turn, the 9200 was derived from a highly modified Optimod-FM 8200 code base.

The 9400, on the other hand, was derived from the 8400 code base, so it has an "intelligent clipping distortion controller" that the 9300 does not. This permits 9400-processed speech to remain very clean even when average modulation levels are pushed to the point where the 9200/9300 would produce a certain amount of audible clipping distortion. The 9400 therefore remains Orban's top of the line processor even for mono analog AM stations, although we believe that the 9300 is a fine choice for those whose budgets cannot accommodate the 9400.

Bob Orban

If I could be honest, I think there is enough that could have been taken away from the 9400 (the added goodies for HD and the ability for the box to do stereo) so that you could leave the 9300 a "mono channel" of 9400 processing and still cut the cost while leaving the 9400 the obvious choice for those doing HD. I personally felt that the 9200 and the 8200 were not improvements of the quality of the 9100/8100 and that both were born out of a time when I felt digital processing was still on shaky ground. I was hoping for something more from the 9300, especially since I tend to a few AM's on budgets with older processors that do sound good, but are over 20 years old now (and in the case of CRL, no longer supported).

I'm sure there is sound reasoning why you designed the 9300 this way that you don't see when you're on the outside looking in.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

The 8300 is a awsome box. The cleanliness and depth of it is the best I've heard so far. With that being said, the default settings do very little to help when dealing with fairly varying levels on an automated station. I've been able to tweek and get it where it works pretty good, but having a good multiband AGC first and defeating Bob's AGC in the 8300 would be good combo IMHO.

 

[fm-engineer]

I won't argue that a stand-alone AGC such as the Ariane isn't effective. I have several in operation, mostly before Omnia processors. For whatever reason they seem to work better there than with the Optimod. Boxes such as compellors also work very well with Omnia, but become audible with Optimods. IMHO, nothing before the Optimods (8300, 5300, 8400, 8500) sounds the best to me. Maybe the new AGC from Orban is in response to so many people defeating the stock AGC. The old 8100 is a different story. Man, I sure miss the 80's and processors in series ;D

The 8300 is a awsome box. The cleanliness and depth of it is the best I've heard so far. With that being said, the default settings do very little to help when dealing with fairly varying levels on an automated station. I've been able to tweek and get it where it works pretty good, but having a good multiband AGC first and defeating Bob's AGC in the 8300 would be good combo IMHO.

 

[Robert Bass]

0

I won't argue that a stand-alone AGC such as the Ariane isn't effective. I have several in operation, mostly before Omnia processors. For whatever reason they seem to work better there than with the Optimod. Boxes such as compellors also work very well with Omnia, but become audible with Optimods. IMHO, nothing before the Optimods (8300, 5300, 8400, 8500) sounds the best to me. Maybe the new AGC from Orban is in response to so many people defeating the stock AGC.

I agree the Optimod's internal AGC could use improvement. We have a Compellor in front of the Optimod 8200 (yes, that is the 8200) unit, and it works great.

R

 

[wgliradio]

Man, I sure miss the 80's and processors in series ;D

Actually, I think processing reached a sonic peak in the late 80's, when you had 8100's tuned to sound their best, AGC's like Prisms and Compellors, which are still used today (the Ariane is a supercharged Prism taken to new heights). These chains were loud and proud and I do miss that sound.

 

[Robert Bass]

Man, I sure miss the 80's and processors in series ;D

Actually, I think processing reached a sonic peak in the late 80's, when you had 8100's tuned to sound their best, AGC's like Prisms and Compellors, which are still used today (the Ariane is a supercharged Prism taken to new heights). These chains were loud and proud and I do miss that sound.

Plus stations likely used additional processing when they mastered music to carts, for that added Umph sound. Kinda fun when a station mastered a cart from a 45 RPM that had a pop sound typical of records. After all was said and done, the entire processing chain really made some of those pops stand out.

R

 

[rorban]

If I could be honest, I think there is enough that could have been taken away from the 9400 (the added goodies for HD and the ability for the box to do stereo) so that you could leave the 9300 a "mono channel" of 9400 processing and still cut the cost while leaving the 9400 the obvious choice for those doing HD. I personally felt that the 9200 and the 8200 were not improvements of the quality of the 9100/8100 and that both were born out of a time when I felt digital processing was still on shaky ground. I was hoping for something more from the 9300, especially since I tend to a few AM's on budgets with older processors that do sound good, but are over 20 years old now (and in the case of CRL, no longer supported).

I'm sure there is sound reasoning why you designed the 9300 this way that you don't see when you're on the outside looking in.

There were two main reasons. First, some engineers and programmers like the 9200 sound and found that it had worked for them in helping stations get ratings. (For example, San Francisco's #1 rated radio station, KGO, used 9200 processing for years.) We were forced to discontinue the 9200 because we could no longer get certain parts for it, and we wanted to create a successor to satisfy the customer base that felt comfortable with the 9200 sound because it had brought them success.

The second reason is that the 9300 has substantially lower input/output delay than the 9400, so it is more "DJ headphone friendly." (The 9400, of course, has our usual low-delay monitor output available for those who want to create a separate DJ headphone feed.)

I have been very surprised over the years to find out how important this is to some broadcasters, to the extent that they would be willing to sacrifice the competitiveness of their sound in order to get low delay in talent headphones. When we originally designed the 8400, we decided to get the best quality that we could, regardless of delay, so we used look-ahead techniques freely. We assumed that there were relatively few live-to-air operations left and that these operations could readily create separate low-delay headphone monitor feeds, usually from backup analog processors. However, field feedback regarding the 8400's delay was much more negative than we had expected, and we had to do some very creative engineering in order to cut the delay by about 50% (starting with 8400 v2.0 software) without compromising the processing algorithms.

 

[wgliradio]

There were two main reasons. First, some engineers and programmers like the 9200 sound and found that it had worked for them in helping stations get ratings. (For example, San Francisco's #1 rated radio station, KGO, used 9200 processing for years.) We were forced to discontinue the 9200 because we could no longer get certain parts for it, and we wanted to create a successor to satisfy the customer base that felt comfortable with the 9200 sound because it had brought them success.

The second reason is that the 9300 has substantially lower input/output delay than the 9400, so it is more "DJ headphone friendly." (The 9400, of course, has our usual low-delay monitor output available for those who want to create a separate DJ headphone feed.)

I have been very surprised over the years to find out how important this is to some broadcasters, to the extent that they would be willing to sacrifice the competitiveness of their sound in order to get low delay in talent headphones. When we originally designed the 8400, we decided to get the best quality that we could, regardless of delay, so we used look-ahead techniques freely. We assumed that there were relatively few live-to-air operations left and that these operations could readily create separate low-delay headphone monitor feeds, usually from backup analog processors. However, field feedback regarding the 8400's delay was much more negative than we had expected, and we had to do some very creative engineering in order to cut the delay by about 50% (starting with 8400 v2.0 software) without compromising the processing algorithms.

You would be surprised. I know many people using 8100' for many reasons, including

1) There is no latency

2) Digital processors on a whole are usually misadjusted by the end users who don't either understand them or have enough time to spend with them, the 8100 is idiot proof and most 8100's sound better than misadjusted digital boxes.

3) Digital processors are usually turned to 11 by people who know what they are doing, but should know better. 8100's sound a little lower on the dial, but have better quality.

4) I find the 8100 has a predictable audio quality cut to cut when used with an add on box(es) like an Ariane or the Prisms. Then I see Arianes in front of Omnia 6's. How far have we come?

5) Card 6, in stock form, still has the best pre-emphasis management to my ears. And despite what some may think, the 8100 can be bright. I'd rather my pre-emphasis to be slightly lispy and mellow than brash and brittle, which is what you get in other offerings and why I have always been an advocate of pre-emphasis insertion BEFORE a limiter designed for the added load and not before a clipper (I don't care how it's manipulated in code) or before a limiter that just acts as a dumb-over threshold device).

6) The 8100 is capable of some nice deep bass, albeit not ridiculous levels of bass like some digital processors (and I will throw all brands in there).

7) There are enough flavors of aftermarket cards to make everyone happy. There are enough mods to make tweakers happy.

 

[FFoti1]

5) Card 6, in stock form, still has the best pre-emphasis management to my ears. And despite what some may think, the 8100 can be bright. I'd rather my pre-emphasis to be slightly lispy and mellow than brash and brittle, which is what you get in other offerings and why I have always been an advocate of pre-emphasis insertion BEFORE a limiter designed for the added load and not before a clipper (I don't care how it's manipulated in code) or before a limiter that just acts as a dumb-over threshold device).

Mike,

Inserting preemphasis depends upon the design of the limiting system. If properly understood, it is possible to add preemphasis after the limiters, as long as the limiter system (multiband of course) is setup to manage the gain-increase-with-frequency function of the emphasis. If this is not adhered to, then problems will result. (I do not recommend this approach with a wideband limiter.)

To my ear, preemphasis before the limiter system yields inconsistent performance, as some material is over-controlled, in the frequency domain, and appears dull. This is due to the limiter's control loop not having flat response. Even in the case of multiband limiters this is true.

-Frank Foti

 

[wgliradio]

I think in the case of the 8100, where the pre-emphasis is inserted with a limiter designed to control the added energy, pre-emphasis sounds less harsh.

That being said, not every processor with pre-emphasis inserted before the limiters sounds great. I just finished auditioning the Omega which has very poor pre-emphasis management, which is odd because they do have an HF limiter ala the 8100, yet they still decided to insert pre-emphasis in their 4 band peak control section, yielding a high end that was way too busy. This could have been easily fixed with better placement, but alas, it was not.

The same can be said for the Aphex 2020 and the Wheatstone stuff, neither of which is impressive in HF management. I still believe in pre-limiter pre-emphasis, I just think it's how you design the limiter that's key. In the case of the 8100 and the other Orban processors, I find that the highs sound smooth yet bright. But this is what I prefer and I've never run into any problems with inconsistant balances.

 

[Sgeirk]

Hey GLI,

I usually agree with you. But, as much of a fan I am of the Omnia "sound", I have to disagree with the Aphex assertion.

The 2020 will not win a loudness war, in spite, I'm very fond of the Aphex sound, particularly the mkIII's handling of high frequencies.

The 2020 is reasonably competitive and sounds very non-fatiguing, particularly the HF's.

Doesn't mean I don' t love me an Omnia 6, Frank!

 

[wgliradio]

The 2020 was on demo at the NAB a few years ago when I went out there (this was 05 IIRC). The display allowed me to load and play my own discs to listen... something I wish Orban and Inovonics would do. Nothing worse than listening to prepackaged material in a processing demo with headphones supplied AT the demo. Let me bring my own disc with my own source material and my own set of cans to plug in. Anyone who is looking at processing at the show should insist on this.

Also the processors should be loaded into exciters with modulation measurements going on and audio available on a high quality receiver, but I digress.

I spent a good 40 minutes with it and was not pleased. The highs were very busy and did not open up even a little. Everything had this weird texture and details were buried. Couple that with the few 2020's I have heard in person, I am not impressed with their high end. Too busy, but processing is subjective and I would like another chance to try the box again and hope to do so soon.