• 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

Omnia ONE

well when the omnia one comes to market as a fm version i'll take it for a ride.but for now i run the omnia 6 ex fm+hd on one fm and the dsp-extra on the other.and as for as performance i would say they are about dead even...paid twice as much for the o6. but sure don't hear twice the difference.
 
Gotta agree. Our DSP-X is right there with the other locals running Omnia 6's... then again, so is my 8100/CRL stuff... both at home and on a setup on an educational that plays alot of classic rock... it's all how you set it.

I've known others who have smoked poorly set Omnia 6's with 8100's. It's kinda hard to screw up an 8100. When you set the CRL SEP-800 and a Compellor in front of an 8100, it's simple, loud and pleasing.

This will sound corny, but the 8100 was from a more romantic time... when processing was still exciting and edgy and radio as a whole was more interesting and edgy. Now that I have two 8100's to play with, I forget how good they were and still are. I dare say the type of programming and brand of radio that played thru the 8100 will never meet a DSP-X or Omnia 6 or 8500. Radio doesn't know how to make that sound anymore and the processing played a big part of the whole sound when it did know. Maybe that's not a reason to pick an audio processor, and lord knows I wouldn't choose an Audimax or Volumax today, but the 8100, even (and especially) at agressive settings, still sounds like *radio* and gives the best of both worlds.
 
Yeah, the blue/gray LCD screen with side backlight looks alot like the one on DSPXmini/DSPX/DSPXtra.


Regards,
Goran Tomas
 
wgliradio said:
Radio doesn't know how to make that sound anymore and the processing played a big part of the whole sound when it did know. Maybe that's not a reason to pick an audio processor, and lord knows I wouldn't choose an Audimax or Volumax today, but the 8100, even (and especially) at agressive settings, still sounds like *radio* and gives the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

What is interesting is that even today when music and the texture of music changed so drastically since the time 8100 was designed, it still sounds good. It's a testament to a well conceived design to stand a test of time for so long...


Regards,
Goran Tomas
 
Goran Tomas said:
Yeah, the blue/gray LCD screen with side backlight looks alot like the one on DSPXmini/DSPX/DSPXtra.


Regards,
Goran Tomas
Click to expand...

Not to mention that dps-x cloned the processing functions of Omnia, which matter far more than the colour of the LCD screen.
 
CalifZeke said:
Not to mention that dps-x cloned the processing functions of Omnia, which matter far more than the colour of the LCD screen.
Click to expand...

I would like to enter this topic but I would like to know what you mean. Could you please clarify what you mean by cloned?
Regards
Scott
 
Goran Tomas said:
What is interesting is that even today when music and the texture of music changed so drastically since the time 8100 was designed, it still sounds good. It's a testament to a well conceived design to stand a test of time for so long...
Click to expand...

Just play "All I Have To Give" by the Backstreet Boys thru an 8100. The limiters are still gentle on all that HF energy. Alot to say about a box that was designed when Air Supply had the ballads.
 
Well, I guess the terms release (DSP-X uses DECAY) and threshold and gate and multiband and limiting and AGC and clipping and drive and bass and pre-emphasis and crossover are all found only in an Omnia.

You should know that most major brands are built with an AGC in front, a compressor/AGC stage, then a limiter and then a clipper before audio is fed to a stereo generator for composite insertion into an exciter.

There are a number of differences between Omnia and DSP-X. There is no stereo expander in the DSP-X (which you could make a case for) and the way the gating functions in both boxes work is quite different. The DSP-X has band coupling while the Omnia does not (a mistake, IMHO). Pre-emphasis is inserted before the limiters in the DSP-X while pre-emphasis is handled after the limiters in the Omnia. The limiters in the DSP-X have adjustable ratios and also seperate controls for a more RMS type limiter that ride on the peak limiters. The DSP-X also has an adjustable dynamic clipper as well as other clipper finesse controls that differ in their effect from the Omnia.

While the types of processing in the individual blocks follow the same path as almost every other all in one box that came before it, there are differences under the hood and in the menus and in the style of processing that show it is quite a different animal.
 
wgliradio said:
There are a number of differences between Omnia and DSP-X. While the types of processing in the individual blocks follow the same path as almost every other all in one box that came before it, there are differences under the hood and in the menus and in the style of processing that show it is quite a different animal.
Click to expand...

You know less than I thought. The functional layout of the unit is the same as Omnia, which was the first to use that form factor. Even some of the phrasing, which had only been unique to Omnia, dspx uses.

Point of all this...dpsx copied omnia long ago, now they laugh at omnia over some dumb advert.
 
So the Omnia was the first box EVER to place an AGC before a compressor before a limiter and clipper? OK!

Thanks for clearing that up.

For the record, I have no problem with Omnia's ad, just like I have no problem with the DSP-X offering $12,000 sound for $3000. And the functional layout in the DSP-X is found in SIMILAR versions as Omnia as well as Orban.. all of which offer their own take of long trusted features (like attack, release, gate, crossover, bass enhancement, limiting, clipping etc) as well as features unique to each box.

So rather than spew generalized statements, why don't you come up with some concrete evidence, or, better yet, how would you lay out a box?
 
wgliradio said:
So the Omnia was the first box EVER to place an AGC before a compressor before a limiter and clipper? OK!

Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...

If you knew processing, as you profess, then you'd know that omnia offered dedicated multiband compressor sections connected directly to their corresponding limiter sections. No mixer between multiband AGC and limiters. That was a first, and that was copied...not to mention many other functions.
 
The Omnia 6 offers a MIXER between the AGC and Limiters. The Enhancer is also located between this mixer and the and limiters... in the DSP-X a bass enhancer is placed before the multiband AGC.

If we are talking about the Omnia 3 layout, it has no window gating in any AGC's, is only a 3 band device, does not offer seperate RMS and Peak limiting adjustments in the limiters OR any release delay, no ratio controls in the limiter, has no band or L/R coupling, no seperate wideband and multiband clipping stages, no way to shape the bass clipper and pre-emphasis is inserted in a different place (that alone is more than enough to change the whole sound of a box).

There is no mixer between the stages of AGC and limiting, but the DSP-X has 4 bands of AGC and 4 bands each of RMS limiting and Peak limiting before a 3 band clipper and final peak clipper.

Do we need to talk about Omnia.fm? The Unity 2000? The Vigilante? What was that a copy (or modification) of?

From you, we get generalized layout comparisons.
 
wgliradio said:
There is no mixer between the stages of AGC and limiting, but the DSP-X has 4 bands of AGC and 4 bands each of RMS limiting and Peak limiting before a 3 band clipper and final peak clipper.

From you, we get generalized layout comparisons.
Click to expand...

No, anyone versed in this stuff, knows they copied Omnia.fm, and does not need specifics.
 
First of all, it is finally time you came up with the box you were actually trying to compare the BW box to, the Omnia.Fm

Second, the Omnia.FM suffered from the same problem as the 8200, it was to market and the 8100/XT2 was still wiping the floor with it and the 8200 (ironic). I have not touched an Omnia.FM since 1999 and was not impressed when I did see one on demo at WKJY in Hempstead LI. It was not purchased, the station stayed with the 8100/XT2 and Prisms. It was not a memorable experience, so the way it was laid out was not something I chose to retain.

Further, looking at the manual to refresh myself with the Omnia FM, while the blocks look similar, there are key differences in how the box processes. Sonically the Omnia.FM could not touch a DSP-X. The DSP-X does not have make up gain in its AGC stages, has window gating, has band coupling and has an extra stage of RMS limiting that rides on the peak limiter. It also has a more refined clipper and seperate clipper stages as has been explained above.

Do you blame a DBX 166 because it has attack and release and ratio controls like a Urei? Do you blame Wheatstone because its consoles have A/B inputs like PR&E? Oh, the A/B switch is placed at the top of each fader. RIPOFF. Also, the bus controls are at the TOP OF THE FADER. Gasp. Are you upset that the LPB Signature II looks like an Autogram AC6? Do you think that one company has never taken a shot at another with similar advertising? Do you think Wheatstone/Vorsis ripped off IDT with all their graphic displays?

It's funny that you mention that "anyone versed in this stuff knows they copied Omnia.fm". In the 3 1/2 years the DSP-X has been to market, this is the first time I have heard anyone say this and I have talked to more than a few key engineers about it in, oh, Market #1. Maybe they're not well versed in "this stuff". When you purchase gear, there is an expectation of flow, be it the location of controls or, in the case of processing, the stages of audio control.
 
lots of designers tend to copy other products, just short of copy right protection.(behringer and mackie..).and the same is probably true of processors.But you know i've never heard a listener say i listen to your station because of the (insert brand name here) processor you use.still very subjective and HOW the box is setup.takes a darn good set of ears.i've heard some of the best and the worse in many different markets.IMHO
 
wgliradio said:
Do you blame a DBX 166 because it has attack and release and ratio controls like a Urei? Do you blame Wheatstone because its consoles have A/B inputs like PR&E? Oh, the A/B switch is placed at the top of each fader. RIPOFF. Also, the bus controls are at the TOP OF THE FADER. Gasp. Are you upset that the LPB Signature II looks like an Autogram AC6? Do you think that one company has never taken a shot at another with similar advertising? Do you think Wheatstone/Vorsis ripped off IDT with all their graphic displays?
Click to expand...

You missed the point. A prior post, in this thread, tried to make it look like omnia was copying from dspx. The point here is the copying began with dspx, cloning omnia features. But they want to make it look the other way.

Also, in testing, dspx fails miserably against omnia.fm.
 
wgliradio said:
You've embarrassed yourself with THAT statement. Your best bet would be to quit now.
Click to expand...

Ah, you really don't know what you're talking about. This coming from the same person who lays claim to an 8100 beating today's boxes. Those are embarrassing claims...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom