Omnia.9

[gtomas]

I was hoping to have that app on my PC and feed it from my frequency agile mod monitor to compare the competition.

I'd like to mention here that the R.128 loudness metering, as good as it is, should not be taken for granted. Simply put, the loudness that the meter shows does not always correspond to subjective perception. One has to take into account that the meter is just an approximation, a tool designed to ball park the loudness, but should not be trusted blindly.

Both Leif and me noticed that sometimes the meter can show lower loudness, while in fact we felt that source was louder than the one that we compared it with.

So in my opinion, it's better to use your ears to judge the competition, rather than trust the numbers on a meter.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[FFoti1]

Frank, great to hear! Is this update going to be a download or swapping of the CF card again? I am currently running on 1.03 on two stations now.

MPX Tool will be added to Omnia.11 in a later release. It's always been planned for. We've just released V: 1.1, and more of those tabs are now active. This release added a few more processing tools, refines a few algorithms, and brings more utility functions to life.

-Frank Foti

It's the last card swap.

-Frank Foti

 

[celar]

Simply put, the loudness that the meter shows does not always correspond to subjective perception. One has to take into account that the meter is just an approximation, a tool designed to ball park the loudness, but should not be trusted blindly.

Definitely. In particular, we have found that attack & release times can have a noticeable effect on perceived loudness, while having only a negligible effect on the metered loudness. Many "moving targets" that contribute to the overall perception.

 

[WNTIRadio]

That's great! Is the V1.1 card shipping now?

If so I'll make a call to Omnia tomorrow and swap them out on the 11.

As for a comparison from the 11 to the 9, they're a bit apples and oranges. I will say that the 11 is the box I would recommend more for the non-expert. It's a lot harder to get into major trouble with the 11 than it is with the 9, just because there are less controls and a two stage control process, with the basic and advanced tabs. The WB-AGC edge goes to the 11, with it's very smooth window gating. You really can't hear it working. The 9, sometimes I can hear AGC action on the WB side. A window like the 11 would be good, where it doesn't do anything if the programming stays within the limits set. The addition of a downward expander on the multiband is helpful in the 9, especially with talk or older source material. The clippers are two different animals altogether, both sound amazing and open even when pushed.

With the tools in V1.1, the 9 and the AirAura to analyze the audio and see exactly what is going on, as well as hearing, Orban has a lot of catching up to do. The simple G/R meters on the 8600 were state of the art on the 8200.

I think the 9 should have two levels of control, a more Breakaway style control for the average Joe PD and then the full on every control under the sun (like it is now) for the engineers and processing geeks.

 

[gtomas]

I will say that the 11 is the box I would recommend more for the non-expert. It's a lot harder to get into major trouble with the 11 than it is with the 9, just because there are less controls and a two stage control process, with the basic and advanced tabs.

I wouldn't say it's because of the controls (there are probably more controls in the 11 than there were in the 6, and you could very easily get into trouble with the 6). It's because Cornelius' algorithms are so clever and adaptive that they work over a wide range of settings and program material. It's amazing to watch AGCs into 20 dB of gain reduction, but without any artifacts you would associate with deep GR!

I love the 11 for the fact that you can adjust any control and fine tune just that aspect of sound, while everything else stays exactly the same and doesn't need constant re-adjustment. It's a very nice box to work with and has that major market contemporary sound you'd expect from it.

And I agree with you that the 9 is quite complex for non-experts. There's so much in there that most people probably wouldn't understand everything and how to use it. It's more of a box for tinkerer's at the moment and I suggested to Leif that he should have a simpler mode. But I'm not sure that fell on fruitful ground Leif?


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[FFoti1]

That's great! Is the V1.1 card shipping now?

Yes it is!

-Frank Foti

 

[satech]

It's because Cornelius' algorithms are so clever and adaptive that they work over a wide range of settings and program material. It's amazing to watch AGCs into 20 dB of gain reduction, but without any artifacts you would associate with deep GR!

CRL was doing that 25 years ago, with their linearized multiband AGC. You can drive 'em up to the eyeballs, and they still sound smooth. The G/R meter on the TVS-3001 goes up to 40 dB!

 

[cgould]

It's because Cornelius' algorithms are so clever and adaptive that they work over a wide range of settings and program material. It's amazing to watch AGCs into 20 dB of gain reduction, but without any artifacts you would associate with deep GR!

CRL was doing that 25 years ago, with their linearized multiband AGC. You can drive 'em up to the eyeballs, and they still sound smooth. The G/R meter on the TVS-3001 goes up to 40 dB!

Driving Multiband AGC's harder vs. a wideband are two different animals. When you split audio into multiple bands, it is always easier to drive multiband AGC's harder as each band only has to deal with a small segment of the overall signal. Wideband has to do everything, and (IMO) has to deal with this wide range gracefully.

The wideband AGC in the 11 is just about as complicated as the entire multiband sections...combined! It took just as long to develop as the rest of the multiband sections. This was no trivial achievement!

CRL's (to me, anyway) have always been sort of a one trick pony. They work OK for certain programs / programming styles, but as a general processor for everything, they fall short. I never liked the "murky" sound they had....lack of transient detail, etc. But that's just me.

A CRL driven harder to me always sounded like a CRL driven harder. Yes, you probably could get 40 dB of gain reduction...but it didn't mean you REALLY could in any practical sense. It may sound OK that way on some material, but to run them that way as a general rule would be a different discussion all together.

Processing is subjective, and what I don't care for is someone else's pot of gold.

The wideband AGC in the 11 is one that I felt would be the perfect match to my multiband AGC designs. Much of my multiband AGC concepts pre-date DSP processing by quite a bit. My challenge back in the analog day was to develop a wideband AGC to go with it. To build the 11's wideband AGC in analog would require a chassis the size of an 8100, and then some!

The era of powerful DSP's have made my wideband AGC a possibility, and a reality. Pegging the meter out at 20 dB of GR, and having the audio sound no different than if the AGC were running at 5 dB of GR was the goal here. All while easily handling dynamic / highly transient material with ease was the icing on the cake.

-C

 

[satech]

The era of powerful DSP's have made my wideband AGC a possibility, and a reality. Pegging the meter out at 20 dB of GR, and having the audio sound no different than if the AGC were running at 5 dB of GR was the goal here. All while easily handling dynamic / highly transient material with ease was the icing on the cake.

If the AGC is fully linearized, as CRL's were, then increasing amounts of gain reduction do not necessarily result in increasingly fast attack and release times -- therefore, when given the same source material, the resulting audio will sound nearly identical regardless if the AGC is driven to -10 dB G/R or -25 dB G/R. The Omnia.9 may do this better than anything before, but it is not a new processing concept.

Here's a short demo of the CRL TVS-3001 (a 1986 design) being driven up to about -25 dB G/R:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmV63FTTUBY

 

[cgould]

Ahh!

I'll leave this to Leif to comment on. Don't know if this methodology is what he is following with the Omnia.9 or not.

The portion of the thread you commented on was specifically mentioning the Omnia.11, NOT the Omnia.9.

Omnia.11 does NOT use linearized time constants anywhere as I generally prefer the sound of time constants in the logarithmic domain.
To my ear, there is something about that method that fits music like a well fitted leather glove. Never could get into the sound of linear time constants.

The 11 uses smart algorithms to manipulate these logarithmic time constants on a real time basis to achieve the characteristics that Goran was referring to.

My response to your was to simply state that I am NOT using any of the techniques used in any CRL product for the Omnia.11.

-C

The Omnia.9 may do this better than anything before, but it is not a new processing concept.

Here's a short demo of the CRL TVS-3001 (a 1986 design) being driven up to about -25 dB G/R:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmV63FTTUBY

 

[satech]

The portion of the thread you commented on was specifically mentioning the Omnia.11, NOT the Omnia.9.

Sorry for the confusion. But it does bring to mind the question if the Leif/Breakaway processing core could be ported over to the Omnia 11? Because right now it seems like the Omnia 11 is the bigger stick that lands the same blow as the 9.

 

[gtomas]

Sorry for the confusion. But it does bring to mind the question if the Leif/Breakaway processing core could be ported over to the Omnia 11? Because right now it seems like the Omnia 11 is the bigger stick that lands the same blow as the 9.

The two could not sound more differently than they do... Have you listened to these processors at all?


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[FFoti1]

Sorry for the confusion. But it does bring to mind the question if the Leif/Breakaway processing core could be ported over to the Omnia 11? Because right now it seems like the Omnia 11 is the bigger stick that lands the same blow as the 9.

Omnia.9 and Omnia.11 are two different topologies, and they each land their own blows, to use your vernacular. We've kicked around the idea of porting various parts of each one into the other. Both are still early in their journeys to begin the mix-and-match game. We've just released V: 1.1 for Omnia.11, which raises its performance bar again.

-Frank Foti

 

[cgould]

Not to pounce, but yes, both boxes have completely different typologies and, as such have completely different textures.

I would encourage anyone curious to try both boxes, and pick the one that works best for your format. Omnia.9 and Omnia.11 are both high power processors, but each have their own distinct signatures.

-C

 

[stephend2]

slightly off topic...

Is there a way to set a password on the omnia.9 remotely? Or do I have to drive back out to set it from the front panel.

I overlooked that little bit and the remote app won't connect.

 

[stephend2]

nevermind...had to RTFM...

got it set remotely via HTTP

 

[BobOnTheJob]

I will say that the 11 is the box I would recommend more for the non-expert. It's a lot harder to get into major trouble with the 11 than it is with the 9, just because there are less controls and a two stage control process, with the basic and advanced tabs.

I wouldn't say it's because of the controls (there are probably more controls in the 11 than there were in the 6, and you could very easily get into trouble with the 6). It's because Cornelius' algorithms are so clever and adaptive that they work over a wide range of settings and program material. It's amazing to watch AGCs into 20 dB of gain reduction, but without any artifacts you would associate with deep GR!

I love the 11 for the fact that you can adjust any control and fine tune just that aspect of sound, while everything else stays exactly the same and doesn't need constant re-adjustment. It's a very nice box to work with and has that major market contemporary sound you'd expect from it.

And I agree with you that the 9 is quite complex for non-experts. There's so much in there that most people probably wouldn't understand everything and how to use it. It's more of a box for tinkerer's at the moment and I suggested to Leif that he should have a simpler mode. But I'm not sure that fell on fruitful ground Leif?


Regards,
Goran Tomas

In layman's terms, the 9 is like a fine quality mountain bike on a narrow trail. Don't deviate far from the presets, and it will scream. Venture too far and you'll find yourself in a ditch real quick. On both Breakaway and on the 9, I have a newfound respect for how much thought and work has apparently gone into each preset.

 

[stephend2]

agreed. I put the 9 on the air tonight, got in trouble in a hurry, went back to preset, all is well.

right out of the box it blows the old dsp-xtra away and sounds much cleaner doing it.

I'm looking forward to spending some more time with it.

 

[konbaasiang]

Indeed. The 9 does not attempt to second-guess how you set the controls -- it does exactly what you ask of it (within the limitations of the algorithms). It shows exactly what it's doing in a multitude of ways, to help you make more informed decisions, but ultimately the decision is yours alone. This has both disadvantages and advantages -- it's indeed very easy to make it sound awful, but it also means that once you get a feel for how it responds, you can do great things I never thought possible! Jesse Graffam does this all the time, which is why most of the factory presets are his.

If you do follow the basic "how to adjust" recommendations in the manual (and mind you, as far as I know, these instructions are in every manual of every model of every brand of audio processor), you don't really get into trouble.

Here's the section I'm referring to from the Omnia.9 manual:

• DO resist the temptation to constantly fiddle with every control right after you put Omnia.9 on the air.
• DON’T make hasty, radical changes.
• DON’T make adjustments to too many parameters at once – that makes it difficult to determine which of the adjustments is actually responsible for the changes (for better or worse) you’re hearing on the air.
• DO take breaks when adjusting your processing. Ears tire quickly, and if you stay at it too long, you’re almost sure to make changes influenced by fatigue.
• DO make small adjustments, particularly to critical controls like Clipper and Limiter thresholds.
• DO take the time to calibrate a set of high-quality reference monitors (a process described in detail in this manual) so that any changes you make aren’t skewed by colorations of the speakers or room.
• DON’T rush the process. Use the “sleep-on-it” method when you’ve reached a point where you are mostly satisfied with the sound, and then re-evaluate it the next day. If it still sounds good, STOP. If it doesn’t, make a few adjustments and walk away for another day.

This is actually how people who design processors adjust processing, but I know not everyone follows these recommendations.

In fact, as an example, imagine sitting in a car for a whole day straight while listening only that car stereo, making constant radical adjustments through the remote interface without having a chance to hear what each one did. You may notice that this is contrary to every recommendation above. We don't put these recommendations in the manual just for fun -- it's really a must. Similar recommendations can be found in both Mr. Foti's and Mr. Orban's manuals, and when those two agree on something, chances are it's good advice.

That being said, I absolutely want to make an easier level of controls. I'm quite happy how Breakaway turned out in that manner -- each slider modifies several internal parameters algorithmically, and thus maintain a reasonable balance no matter how you set them. The tricky part is that I want to make it possible to go *back* to less-more after having made expert modifications -- something I have yet seen done. I know basically what to do, it's just a matter of when. For example, I have to implement BS-412 compliance first, as that's completely missing.

Best regards,
///Leif

 

[stephend2]

Motor City preset seems to be a good starting point for classic hits. I'm going to listen to it for a couple days before messing with it...

I like the built in RDS as well, messing with that, have been using a pira.cz encoder, will put that back on tomorrow since our automation and all is setup for it.

I've also started some testing of ssb, not seeing quite the difference of the videos that were posted but definitely a noticable difference in a high multipath area.