Omnia One

[oldiesstation]

The real deal is what it sounds like in your air chain.For gosh sakes, get a demo and do it right..every thing from the console to the xmtr will play a part in your total air sound.Nothing new here.IMHO

 

[FFoti1]

If they start judging your audio processors by a sample on the internet I agree with you Frank, I'm shore they won't, and if a box is set up badly and I ask what they are running, and they say "we use an Omnia One". What does this do for your image? You can't rule out every single thing that could set it in a bad daylight. Have a litle faith in us, that's what I mean.

If the intent, among the group, was to share processed files for 'hobbyist' intentions, tI'd be a bit more understanding. But I have read numerous posts, where the question was asked if there were audio samples of various processors, as the person posting, wanted to get an idea of what a particular box sounded like. In essence, trying to get a 'demo' via the internet. THAT discipline will not offer a valid representation of any product.

So, it's not without precident that the practice of using internet audio files for evaluation has occurred. I could understand the qualms if it was not possible to obtain any of the assorted boxes for a demo, but that's not the case. I know our product is available for demoing, just about the world-over. So, do yourselves a favor, get the box in-house, and play. Then, and only then, will you be able to obtain an honest evaluation.

-Frank Foti

 

[ChiefEngineer]

(In essence, trying to get a 'demo' via the internet. THAT discipline will not offer a valid representation of any product.

I know our product is available for demoing, just about the world-over. So, do yourselves a favor, get the box in-house, and play. Then, and only then, will you be able to obtain an honest evaluation.)

BSW says the product can be returned within 30 days if it doesn't make our current processor sound like a Volumax. It is good to be able to have the return option. I know this is probably overused by the industry.

I know of so many products I have wasted time on over the years. Many of them the latest and greatest processor that turned out to be less than great. One was a yamaha like compressor limiter reverb device with a new front to hide who made it. Try adding another comma to the price for the plate where the yamaha name used to be. Some programing types got Engineering into these messes because a buddy had a station that sounded really hot....

Nice thing about this forum is that there are those who have tried the product and have opinions about the One. We have comments from Foti and Orban on the board regularly. Although Bob hasn't commented about the One....

This is an unprecedented era where we can get information and exchange ideas with the Armstrongs of our time and to that end this has been great.

My One arrives as soon as the poor Malaysian kids in Cleveland can box up a few more. (Week to 10 days because the sales are hot on this according to Sales guy.)

Thanks again for all the help and we will compare this to the Unity 2000. In the old days we would drive to a station with a new transmitter, console, etc to see it in use. This doesn't happen as much. There are fewer evaluations at a local level. usually it is : replace the old box with this. There was really no budget for the box but we created one.

From one who can't program from the tiny front panel display - being legally blind isn't all bad at Christmas parties excuse me miss - the remote option is great and this is hopefully how I will control it with my 30 inch lcd display.

Thanks again for the help in determining what to demo to replace a tired processor.

 

[tjm_pro]

Good luck with your new purchase.

As I write this post I'm remote controlling our NCE's "ONE" from my desk at home. On air right now is a block of Sinatra... Boy this sucker sounds good.

 

[yeoldeschool]

I must be alone here. Conceptually, I see no problems with internet audio samples for evaluating a processor's native sound. In my opinion, any problems that do exist occur only with their implementations.

If someone says, "here's what an Omnia 6ex sounds like" after connecting a Walmart CD player to its analog inputs and sampling its analog outputs with his laptop's onboard Taiwanese sound card chipset, the demonstration is clearly flawed.

However, by observing some simple quality standards, internet audio samples can be very fair. For example, if:

(a) the source audio is first digitally ripped to .wav format using something like EAC;
(b) the processor's input is fed that .wav via a sound card with a linear digital output (i.e., no change in sample rate or resolution versus the .wav's);
(c) the processor's output is captured with a sound card capable of sample-accurate digital input;
(d) the captured bits are saved to a lossless audio file format with no PC-based audio manipulation beforehand (i.e., not even normalization, since waveform editors typically add trace amounts of white noise to every manipulation they perform for anti-aliasing purposes);
(e) the person providing the sample identifies the factory preset used (and if customized, cites the exact deviations); and,
(f) the source .wav created in step "a" is also provided (as opposed to re-ripping the source CD, since this, if one truly wishes to be meticulous, can result in a different set of CD drive read errors),

... then one couldn't get much more fair.

True, this wouldn't demonstrate what a processor would sound like (or what it was capable of doing) in a specific airchain. For that, Mr. Foti's advice - acquiring a demo unit - is the only way. But if the issue is listening to how a processor sounds natively, without any coloration at all, even from an airchain, and if the listener acknowledges that what he's hearing only represents the sound of preset X vs. song X (and therefore doesn't demonstrate the box's only sound), this is a valid option. It's not like sound cards with digital I/O are hard to come by, or like quality-control steps like those named above are a great inconvenience.

Regarding concerns over the enormity of WAV files: broadband tends to alleviate them these days. Even still, there are several well-known alternatives to the WAV format that are also lossless, but which offer compression capable of cutting file sizes nearly in half versus WAV. Like, my personal favorite, FLAC: the Free Lossless Audio Codec. See here for compression efficiency information, and here for available hardware/software encoding/playback support. There's even a CoolEdit/Audition read/write plug-in.

This 'uploading clip' thing is good FUN. It's more of a competitive thing between the engineers that have set them up than a 'I'm going to buy a processor, I'll buy one based on the clips I download'. Who cares if they're mp3? I can still tell what sounds cool.

Absolutely. I regard everything at fserve.redirectme.net as "colored." They aren't processor demos; they're processing demos. The clips mention the boxes used so we know where 80% of their "sound" originates from. But they don't demonstrate exactly how those boxes sound natively.

The one site I found where Orban provided processing samples, the files were not offered in the .wav format.

http://www.orban.com/products/radio/fm/8400hd/ offers samples in .wav format. However, the point of this page isn't to demonstrate the 8400's full range of capabilities, but to demonstrate the general dynamic range and HF response differences between its FM and IBOC outputs. (But yes. Because the clips were made digitally with sample-accurate I/O, they still somewhat demonstrate how the 8400 sounds - at least on the songs provided, at whichever "less-more" levels were used, and with whatever presets were chosen.)

 

[FFoti1]

However, by observing some simple quality standards, internet audio samples can be very fair. For example, if:

(a) the source audio is first digitally ripped to .wav format using something like EAC;
(b) the processor's input is fed that .wav via a sound card with a linear digital output (i.e., no change in sample rate or resolution versus the .wav's);
(c) the processor's output is captured with a sound card capable of sample-accurate digital input;
(d) the captured bits are saved to a lossless audio file format with no PC-based audio manipulation beforehand (i.e., not even normalization, since waveform editors typically add trace amounts of white noise to every manipulation they perform for anti-aliasing purposes);
(e) the person providing the sample identifies the factory preset used (and if customized, cites the exact deviations); and,
(f) the source .wav created in step "a" is also provided (as opposed to re-ripping the source CD, since this, if one truly wishes to be meticulous, can result in a different set of CD drive read errors),

... then one couldn't get much more fair.

If the broadcast medium were designed to operate as described in the quote, then it makes sense. But, a true evaluation must take into consideration the entire broadcast path. Internet sample files do not provide that.

Exciters, STL systems, and broadcast infrastructure all contribute to the overall sound. If that is not taken into consideration during the demo process, then the evaluation is flawed.

BTW: I have tried the described method, and the resulting sound was different than the systemic method, which BTW is the tried and true method of processing evaluation.

I know that there will be those who will follow the 'sampled-file' method. I assure you that the sonic results will be colored and not a true replication of the device up for evaluation.

Another point for consideration, is that with shared files, you cannot get an understanding of the operative range that a processor can achieve. You are hedging a bet that the processor was setup properly, and adjusted in a manner that would be acceptable. Remember, what may sound OK, or not OK, in one market may be the exact opposite in another. Too many variables that WILL generate discolored results.

-Frank Foti

 

[Robert Bass]

I do not subscribe to the notion of such a thing as "lossless audio file compression".

R

 

[The F Mister]

If they start judging your audio processors by a sample on the internet I agree with you Frank, I'm shore they won't, and if a box is set up badly and I ask what they are running, and they say "we use an Omnia One". What does this do for your image? You can't rule out every single thing that could set it in a bad daylight. Have a litle faith in us, that's what I mean.

If the intent, among the group, was to share processed files for 'hobbyist' intentions, tI'd be a bit more understanding.
-Frank Foti

I can assure you Frank, that is the case for me. As Stace said: "trading processing clips is just good fun". But Frank, if one of your distributors here in the Netherlands would e-mail me offering a demo box for a week or so I would refuse it.

 

[FFoti1]

But Frank, if one of your distributors here in the Netherlands would e-mail me offering a demo box for a week or so I would refuse it.

Not sure why you'd refuse the opportunity to evaluate a product yourself, or your reasoning behind this thinking. This does not make any sense at all.

-Frank Foti

 

[The F Mister]

You are right Frank, I hit the post button to fast on retrospect because it should be "wouldn't". the "" says enough I hope. My honest mistake.

 

[yeoldeschool]

If the broadcast medium were designed to operate as described in the quote, then it makes sense. But, a true evaluation must take into consideration the entire broadcast path. Internet sample files do not provide that.

Granted. That's why I said this method is useful for demonstrating the "native" sound of a processor. As you pointed out, sample files can't replace hands-on auditions where a user can adjust the processing in real-time to see whether the box will produce what he personally likes. Nor can they offer accurate representations of what processor X will sound like in air chain Y. Nonetheless, there are many quality and performance aspects to processing that can be evaluated independent of individual air chain coloration, and any given sample file, properly made, can still demonstrate a processor's native sound for the specific processing settings used to create it.

Hope I'm not sounding combattive. Only trying to clarify my intent with the previous post. Samples would be an interim evalulation - but not the final, decision-making one, done with a hands-on demo.

Case and point: when you demonstrate your Omnias at NAB, do you run them through miniature airchains and FM tuners? If you don't, then you're effectively "decoloring" your demonstrations; if you do, then you're coloring them differently than your buyers' air chains would. Regardless, in that environment, their native sounds can still be compared to those of your competitors' well enough to inspire hands-on demos later.

I do not subscribe to the notion of such a thing as "lossless audio file compression".

Time to start. Lossy formats like MPEG achieve data reduction by first removing sonic information at the acoustic level according to psychoacoustic masking principles. Then they compress the resulting binary representation of that damaged audio with a lossless mathematical algorithm (just as ZIP losslessly compresses the binary data inside .exe files).

Formats like FLAC only do the latter. Saving audio as .flac is basically the same as saving it as .wav and then zipping the .wav in one step. The difference is, FLAC's lossless algorithms are optimized for the kinds of binary patterns found in audio files. All data compression formats - ZIP, RAR, etc. - actually consist of several algorithms, some optimized for text files, some for executables, etc. FLAC's is simply optimized for audio binary. And the compression ratios it can achieve prove it.

If you aren't buying this, just convert a .wav file to a .flac file, and then back to .wav. Cancel the original and new .wav against each other in your favorite waveform editor, and the result will be silence from start to finish.

 

[FFoti1]

Granted. That's why I said this method is useful for demonstrating the "native" sound of a processor. As you pointed out, sample files can't replace hands-on auditions where a user can adjust the processing in real-time to see whether the box will produce what he personally likes. Nor can they offer accurate representations of what processor X will sound like in air chain Y. Nonetheless, there are many quality and performance aspects to processing that can be evaluated independent of individual air chain coloration, and any given sample file, properly made, can still demonstrate a processor's native sound for the specific processing settings used to create it.

Hope I'm not sounding combattive. Only trying to clarify my intent with the previous post. Samples would be an interim evalulation - but not the final, decision-making one, done with a hands-on demo.

Well, there really isn't a 'native' sound to these boxes due to the extreme flexibility they afford. Your above response further supports my claims, as there is not much to gain, or learn, by listening to sampled-files. If you hear something you like, or don't like, you really will not know why.

Also, you are assuming that the sampled-files will be properly made. That's a real stretch. I have personally visited too many facilities, where the processing was supposedly 'properly' setup, only to find enough 'mistakes' in the setup that created poor performance. Since that happens in the realworld, what makes you think that these sampled-files will be properly produced? I highly doubt it.

Case and point: when you demonstrate your Omnias at NAB, do you run them through miniature airchains and FM tuners? If you don't, then you're effectively "decoloring" your demonstrations; if you do, then you're coloring them differently than your buyers' air chains would. Regardless, in that environment, their native sounds can still be compared to those of your competitors' well enough to inspire hands-on demos later.

We sure do setup mini-airchains at the major tradeshows, and for all the reasons I have stated. We replicate the demo setup as close to the realworld. Is it *exactly* the same as what will be in a specific radio station? No, it's not, but it's a lot closer than the false results that are created by sampled-files.

-Frank Foti

 

[Robert Bass]

We sure do setup mini-airchains at the major tradeshows, and for all the reasons I have stated. We replicate the demo setup as close to the realworld. Is it *exactly* the same as what will be in a specific radio station? No, it's not, but it's a lot closer than the false results that are created by sampled-files.

False results if you go straight from the box to the PC where it will be recorded. That's not how I'd cut the samples. I'd cut them similar to how you set up for the radio shows. I'd use the tuner to record the audio as a file on the PC.

R

 

[gtomas]

I think much has been said and much is true. There is a place for exchange of processing clips on-line and input that can be gained that way. At least how a station/processor can sound. Or what is someones preference, their "signature" sound, what someone likes and if we like it too (individually). There isn't much difference in listening to a station on a tuner and recording it and listening afterwards, or downloading that recording on-line and listening. The station's programing and sound is pretty much preserved.

If the people listening to these clips are familiar with the processors (have used them or are using them), than a more critical analysis can be made, and the exchange is more valuable.

Now I wholeheartedly agree with Frank in that a processor shouldn't be evaluated based on these clips. You can only get perhaps an idea of the processor taking into account the wide range of subjectivness of the one who adjusted the processor/made the recording, source material quality, assumption of valid input/output adjustment, transmission system coloration, etc.

But honestly, I really don't know anyone in the right mind, who has a $$$$ in his pocket, is shopping for on-air processor that will not demo the units he can buy, but would instead make a decision based on downloaded clips? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think we should even be talking about that... It's that silly, not to mention irresponsible.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[yeoldeschool]

Well, there really isn't a 'native' sound to these boxes due to the extreme flexibility they afford.

Where do the frequent references to "Orban bass," or Omnia's uncanny cleanliness, come from in that case? If these boxes don't really have native sounds, and are so flexible that they can be made to sound like anything, what competitive differences remain between a 6ex, an 8500, and a DSP-X?

If you hear something you like, or don't like, you really will not know why.

For the most part, I've been in agreement on this, and still am. Though, citing the preset used (and if modified, how) for an individual sample would offer valuable insight.

Also, you are assuming that the sampled-files will be properly made. That's a real stretch. I have personally visited too many facilities, where the processing was supposedly 'properly' setup, only to find enough 'mistakes' in the setup that created poor performance. Since that happens in the realworld, what makes you think that these sampled-files will be properly produced? I highly doubt it.

Generally because, unlike such a sophisticated facility, there are fewer opportunities for mistakes when the sample files' "air chain" consists of a .wav file -> linear digital connection -> processor -> linear digital connection -> another .wav file.

But honestly, I really don't know anyone in the right mind, who has a $$$$ in his pocket, is shopping for on-air processor that will not demo the units he can buy, but would instead make a decision based on downloaded clips? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think we should even be talking about that... It's that silly, not to mention irresponsible.

Well, I didn't intend to start a massive debate. I'll reiterate yet again that I agree with the necessity of auditioning demo units in the plant where they're destined to be installed. All I've been trying to get across is that, for anyone who wants to hear a processor's output "raw" for its own sake, there's no sin in samples.

BTW, Robert Bass - FYI, if it interests you:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4416/testbx4.png
http://www.sendspace.com/file/yom4vd (test.wav and test.flac)
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/flac/flac-1.2.1a.exe

 

[FFoti1]

But honestly, I really don't know anyone in the right mind, who has a $$$$ in his pocket, is shopping for on-air processor that will not demo the units he can buy, but would instead make a decision based on downloaded clips? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think we should even be talking about that... It's that silly, not to mention irresponsible.

Ah, now we hit some meaningful dialog! It occurred to me that there's a variable to this discussion I'm a bit closer to than most of you. Being on the vendor side and having done this for 20+ years, I see and hear many of the crazy scenarios that people do when testing, evaluating, or installing equipment. Please know that we have had people demo equipment with crazy and/or obnoxious methods that rivals those we are talking about here. I would classify these as irresponsible. The assumption that someone would not use a sampled-file for a purchase evaluation is not a sure bet.

So, maybe this might help the group undewrstand why I'm strongly against a practice like this, as I know it will be misused for evaluation purposes. I have seen crazier things occur.

The real proof is applying one of these units in the environment it's intended. Trying to create a simulated lashup, sampled-files, will not do the trick.

-Frank Foti