Trying to emulate the texture of a 8100+XT2 with a 8200 v3 (I know that some of you will claim that is not 100% possible...) but when considering that not all the software parameters are accessible by the end user, what factory preset is closest to use as starting point, just to be sure to have the same ratios, thresholds, band linking, ect... It's very interesting to hear the same setting but from the different factory presets...
-
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
Optimod 8200 closest preset to 8100+XT2
- Thread starter stha
- Start date
It's possible to get a somewhat emulated sound, but the bass stuff works differently and the band crossovers are slightly different on the low end. With that being said, it can still be done to a certain extent. None of the presets are tuned to match that sound, so download the XT2 manual from the Orban website and look at some of their suggested preset values. It's available in the '8100A1' FTP folder.
When reading the XT2 manual:
CLIPPING (XT2) = final clip drive
DENSITY = multiband drive
Some other considerations when you attempt this:
- The multiband release in the XT2 is a equal to the Fast release setting in all digital Optimods. You don't need to have more than a couple dB of gain reduction in the multiband.
- I don't know if I would use very much in the way of Mid Bass Boost since the XT2 bass control is a peaking boost at somewhere around 65 Hz. Low Bass boost is probably going to be your best bet.
- Leave the 30 Hz HPF and the Phase Rotator both IN. If the unit has a multiband gate it needs to be OFF. Only the AGC gate should be used.
When reading the XT2 manual:
CLIPPING (XT2) = final clip drive
DENSITY = multiband drive
Some other considerations when you attempt this:
- The multiband release in the XT2 is a equal to the Fast release setting in all digital Optimods. You don't need to have more than a couple dB of gain reduction in the multiband.
- I don't know if I would use very much in the way of Mid Bass Boost since the XT2 bass control is a peaking boost at somewhere around 65 Hz. Low Bass boost is probably going to be your best bet.
- Leave the 30 Hz HPF and the Phase Rotator both IN. If the unit has a multiband gate it needs to be OFF. Only the AGC gate should be used.
A couple of slight changes to whitfm,i hope you don't mind!
Clipping control on xt2 is same as multiband clip control,not final clip drive.
Also the 8100a/xt2 gates on the 8100a's dual band agc only,whilst the 8200's gate gates both dual band agc and multiband limiters together,you cannot seperate them.
I have been meaning to try and do a preset on the 8200 that is similar to the 8100a/xt2,but as whitfm has righly pointed out the 8200 bass is quite different.
I would guess that you would have to use the bass coupling control on the 8200 to get closer to the 8100a/xt2,as well as other adjustments.
Still all very interesting.
As the 8200's band 3 covers a wide freq range,this would be covered by at least 2 xt2's bands,i find that is why the 8100a/xt2 has a more consistent midrange in that lower mid and upper mid is seperated.
Clipping control on xt2 is same as multiband clip control,not final clip drive.
Also the 8100a/xt2 gates on the 8100a's dual band agc only,whilst the 8200's gate gates both dual band agc and multiband limiters together,you cannot seperate them.
I have been meaning to try and do a preset on the 8200 that is similar to the 8100a/xt2,but as whitfm has righly pointed out the 8200 bass is quite different.
I would guess that you would have to use the bass coupling control on the 8200 to get closer to the 8100a/xt2,as well as other adjustments.
Still all very interesting.
As the 8200's band 3 covers a wide freq range,this would be covered by at least 2 xt2's bands,i find that is why the 8100a/xt2 has a more consistent midrange in that lower mid and upper mid is seperated.
Well many years ago when i replaced an 8100/xt combo with a 8200, i tried to get close,but never could,they are totally different boxes.The 8200 never sounded better than the 8100/xt.The owners heard it and said"Take the 8200 out, send it back and put the 8100/xt back on line.It is still on air at a major market AC.
I already got something "very" close when the unit is set up that way, but there's always "something" different on the final spectral balance from song to song. I don't want to sound "better" but "closer" to 8100/XT2, maybe just "cleaner" on voices (and it is!) but using a processor that don't need to be aligned, recaped... As I'm ready to spend hours to test any possible setting, I just want to know what factory preset is the closest because they should have very different hidden settings, it seems to be a very important starting point. Maybe that Mr Orban is the only to know that, he's welcome to contribute...
stha said:
I've emailed him about this before (in an effort to emulate that sound on our old 8400), and he told me pretty quickly that they never made any effort to duplicate that XT2 sound in the processors that followed after it. He said because the DSP/lookahead capabilities that they implemented in subsequent processors allowed them to ultimately get louder than the XT2, they pretty much started from scratch on the sound with the 8200. Personally, I think there's still enough of an interest in the XT2 to warrant them creating some 'Classic' presets in their digital units, but we may never see that. Maybe Bob will chime in with some more thoughts on this.
I love the sound of the 8200's with the right settings. Infact, I've been trying to make my 8500 sound like an 8200. I can get close, but the 8500 distorts so easily. Any majic setting on the 8500 to reduce distortion? All I've found so far is to keep the multiband drive down to like 12 and set the clippers to zero (which is not really zero, it's just a nominial reference point) or below, but then it's not even as loud as the 8200.
listner1 said:
If you want to emulate an 8200 with the 8500, start with one of the 8500's ULL (ultra low latency) presets and work from there. The ULL signal path is very similar to the 8200's path except the clippers are better and you still have the latest window-gated AGC. (To really emulate the 8200, you will have to set the AGC Window to 0 dB, but that would be throwing away its advantages.)
As far as reducing distortion on an 8500 vs. 8200, I'm not really sure what you mean. The 8500 is much more forgiving than the 8200 because of the 8500's distortion controller, which helps prevent the clippers from being overdriven. At least to my ears, the 8500 can get more than 2 dB louder than the 8200 for the same amount of perceived distortion, and this is due to the 8500's distortion controller.
The distortion controller is not in the signal path with the ULL presets, which is why I recommended them if you truly want to emulate the 8200's sound. But as far as my own taste goes, I have moved on and the 8500 represents Greg's and my latest work.
Bob,
I have been counting the release time of the master band on the 8100a.
Testing the release from 20db compression to 10db(so the release time is constant),i estimate the following settings on the 8100a (with the agc jumpers set for "xt2 mode") as follows,
4 = 1 SECOND FOR 10DB RELEASE (10DB/SEC).
6 = 2 SECONDS FOR 10DB RELEASE (5DB/SEC).
8 = 3 SECONDS FOR 10DB RELEASE (3.3DB/SEC).
10 = 5 SECONDS FOR 10DB RELEASE (2DB/SEC).
As the timing modules have delayed release,and the faster the release setting the shorter the delayed release is,does the 8200's agc have approx the same delayed release or is their no delayed release?
Thanks,
Paul.
I have been counting the release time of the master band on the 8100a.
Testing the release from 20db compression to 10db(so the release time is constant),i estimate the following settings on the 8100a (with the agc jumpers set for "xt2 mode") as follows,
4 = 1 SECOND FOR 10DB RELEASE (10DB/SEC).
6 = 2 SECONDS FOR 10DB RELEASE (5DB/SEC).
8 = 3 SECONDS FOR 10DB RELEASE (3.3DB/SEC).
10 = 5 SECONDS FOR 10DB RELEASE (2DB/SEC).
As the timing modules have delayed release,and the faster the release setting the shorter the delayed release is,does the 8200's agc have approx the same delayed release or is their no delayed release?
Thanks,
Paul.
BROADCAST said:
If I recall correctly (and it has been about 20 years since I worked on the 8200's AGC), it has about the same amount of delayed release as the 8100, which is what we considered the minimum to prevent excessive modulation distortion at low frequencies. However, the 8200's AGC release time constant is essentially the same number of dB/second regardless of the amount of gain reduction, while the 8100's release switches from linear to exponential at 10 dB of gain reduction.
Bob Orban
Bob,
I have just been looking at the 8200 agc set for 1db/sec release.
With the gate switched off the release does release at 1db/sec from -20 to -10db,but slows down at the agc recovers from -10 to 0.
But what is interesting is that when the agc release is set to 5db/sec the release from -10 to 0 appears to be 5db/sec or very close to.
Does that ring a bell with you?
I have just been looking at the 8200 agc set for 1db/sec release.
With the gate switched off the release does release at 1db/sec from -20 to -10db,but slows down at the agc recovers from -10 to 0.
But what is interesting is that when the agc release is set to 5db/sec the release from -10 to 0 appears to be 5db/sec or very close to.
Does that ring a bell with you?
P
Phaser
Guest
Hello Paul, Hello “stha” Stephane
I read this post just from curiosity & from his “funny” and attractive to me heading “Optimod 8200 closest preset to 8100+XT2” as I was owner, user & as all of you I do make less or extended modifications to 8100 alone or both XT2 with much help of Paul, so I am very familiar with sound of both units.
8100/xt2 it was a great school for all of us but for my tastes (I am not on silly loudness war syndrome) sound euphonic on mids with a touch of hard Brilliance bass region is on thin side, 8200 completes me enough on all aspects is more “polite” with music with pleasurable results – as many says is a “love & hate thing”.
Paul successfully says in few words that 8200 is a very different unit & will not confused in any case with a 8100/XT2, major dif is that the 8200 belongs to early digital era & 8100/xt2 to an analogue & his sound belongs except his (revolutionary for its time) excellent design to used IC, TL072 dominate the resulted sound from this is well known, 8200 has missing the band six, have a non debatable AGC on multi-bands, Bass coupling has effect and on multi-bands (Gregg’s Bass) instead of 8100 which was only on the two bands AGC, use limited CPU power so have limited resolution on details in comparison with today monster CPU’s, we cant do any “mimic” sound of 8100+XT2 with any digital unit, many people thinks that because 8200 is the next step from 8100/xt2 may have the same sound or close to, sound of 8200 is unique and belongs only to him due the above and more factors (the same is with 8100/xt2) with its good and bad as happen with all processors, depends always from what you expect from a box, (if you are lucky enough with the rest units of the chain out of the Composite BNC
Is very funny & interesting to see people seeking to emulate that sound with this unit (nowadays is trendy to make presets rather to give an new ideas as happen to the days of Mr. Robert for example) or even more try to give on his 8100/xt2 a more digital “appeal/touch” in sake of “evolution” or “just for fun” try to “surpassing” the designer, maker of the unit always seeking for mistakes or for some week points to hit with his own knock-out and his youth’s “know it all” syndrome which make them to look very “unpolished” without any sense of “respect” to those which “mapping out “ the roads on which walk right now, they must learn first some history before catch a solder gun to burn everything
Really I don’t understand that craziness to seeking from the software’s to give us an old time era sound, software’s is here to give our world a step ahead not backwards, personally if I want a sound of an 8100/xt2 I go to buy one original and leave it as is in peace with almost necessary boring job of re-cap etc know well tips “don’t try to make your 8100/xt2 a Frankenstein unit” expert if you know very well what you doing & what you seek, on other hand of course is always and that they do “ special hot rods” as named it just for the money.
If I want a sound of an 8200 then I will by one, I never ask a sound of an 8200 from an 8500!!! (Sorry but this is the anecdote of the year
Please consider that, Software’s is not a “panacea” a cure for all problems.
Regards to all
My respects to Mr. Robert Orban
XFon
I read this post just from curiosity & from his “funny” and attractive to me heading “Optimod 8200 closest preset to 8100+XT2” as I was owner, user & as all of you I do make less or extended modifications to 8100 alone or both XT2 with much help of Paul, so I am very familiar with sound of both units.
8100/xt2 it was a great school for all of us but for my tastes (I am not on silly loudness war syndrome) sound euphonic on mids with a touch of hard Brilliance bass region is on thin side, 8200 completes me enough on all aspects is more “polite” with music with pleasurable results – as many says is a “love & hate thing”.
Paul successfully says in few words that 8200 is a very different unit & will not confused in any case with a 8100/XT2, major dif is that the 8200 belongs to early digital era & 8100/xt2 to an analogue & his sound belongs except his (revolutionary for its time) excellent design to used IC, TL072 dominate the resulted sound from this is well known, 8200 has missing the band six, have a non debatable AGC on multi-bands, Bass coupling has effect and on multi-bands (Gregg’s Bass) instead of 8100 which was only on the two bands AGC, use limited CPU power so have limited resolution on details in comparison with today monster CPU’s, we cant do any “mimic” sound of 8100+XT2 with any digital unit, many people thinks that because 8200 is the next step from 8100/xt2 may have the same sound or close to, sound of 8200 is unique and belongs only to him due the above and more factors (the same is with 8100/xt2) with its good and bad as happen with all processors, depends always from what you expect from a box, (if you are lucky enough with the rest units of the chain out of the Composite BNC
Is very funny & interesting to see people seeking to emulate that sound with this unit (nowadays is trendy to make presets rather to give an new ideas
as happen to the days of Mr. Robert for example) or even more try to give on his 8100/xt2 a more digital “appeal/touch” in sake of “evolution” or “just for fun” try to “surpassing” the designer, maker of the unit always seeking for mistakes or for some week points to hit with his own knock-out and his youth’s “know it all” syndrome which make them to look very “unpolished” without any sense of “respect” to those which “mapping out “ the roads on which walk right now, they must learn first some history before catch a solder gun to burn everything Really I don’t understand that craziness to seeking from the software’s to give us an old time era sound, software’s is here to give our world a step ahead not backwards, personally if I want a sound of an 8100/xt2 I go to buy one original and leave it as is in peace with almost necessary boring job of re-cap etc know well tips “don’t try to make your 8100/xt2 a Frankenstein unit” expert if you know very well what you doing & what you seek, on other hand of course is always and that they do “ special hot rods” as named it just for the money.
If I want a sound of an 8200 then I will by one, I never ask a sound of an 8200 from an 8500!!! (Sorry but this is the anecdote of the year
Please consider that, Software’s is not a “panacea” a cure for all problems.
Regards to all
My respects to Mr. Robert Orban
XFon
BROADCAST said:
I can't say that it does, but I would certainly rely on measurements done now instead of my memory of a design process that happened two decades ago.
I am quite unsentimental about my older designs and my goal is (and must be) moving forward with new developments. This is the only way for a processor manufacturer to stay in business! Due to the precipitously declining cost of DSP, it is possible to do things that were simply out of the question with the DSPs available when the 8200 was designed, and I am grateful for every extra MIPS that I can get
Bob Orban
I understand Bob that you don’t want to mess with the 8200 anymore, but I would guess there are hundreds of FM stations still using the 8200 on a daily basis as their main on-air processor.
How much of a problem would it be to get one of your programmers to let stations still using the box have access to timing parameters that became available in the 8300. I’m sure these stations would be glad to purchase a new ver4 software module or send in their old module for an upgrade. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a new processor and you would give “new life” to the old box. I know you’ll probably poo, poo the idea but you might give it some thought.
How much of a problem would it be to get one of your programmers to let stations still using the box have access to timing parameters that became available in the 8300. I’m sure these stations would be glad to purchase a new ver4 software module or send in their old module for an upgrade. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a new processor and you would give “new life” to the old box. I know you’ll probably poo, poo the idea but you might give it some thought.
You don't get it.
Do you really think Omnia and Orban just have people sitting around doing nothing? Legacy products require significant engineering resources just due to parts becoming obsolete and the ongoing support.
Just remember, the staff of even the biggest independent broadcast equipment manufacturer is tiny compared to the the broadcast groups. Especially in the processing market place manufacturers have to keep moving or die.
One of the main reason you see manufacturers answering questions in forums like this is so they can control the damage caused when people go off half cocked without knowing what they are talking about (though altruism is a factor as well).
If you really want new software for the 8200 you should offer to buy it for $100,000 and offer to sign a disclosure agreement as well.
Oh, you don't think it is worth that? Oh well for you!
Do you really think Omnia and Orban just have people sitting around doing nothing? Legacy products require significant engineering resources just due to parts becoming obsolete and the ongoing support.
Just remember, the staff of even the biggest independent broadcast equipment manufacturer is tiny compared to the the broadcast groups. Especially in the processing market place manufacturers have to keep moving or die.
One of the main reason you see manufacturers answering questions in forums like this is so they can control the damage caused when people go off half cocked without knowing what they are talking about (though altruism is a factor as well).
If you really want new software for the 8200 you should offer to buy it for $100,000 and offer to sign a disclosure agreement as well.
Oh, you don't think it is worth that? Oh well for you!
mp3RadioGuy said:
What was a suprise is that when i ordered a replacement v3 program module for the 8200,the module came with no potting compound and no potted module!
When i questioned this i was told that they no longer potted that module,so i assume that as it is now "old hat" and it's not worth the effort in hiding the contents of the hardware.
Of course working out what the eprom code is doing is another thing!
I was intrigued when Bob said that knowing what he knows now about dsp code,modest improvements could be had with the final clipper on the 8200.
But as RealityCheckr correctly points out,servicing and spares can be problematic for legacy products,let alone upgrades for them.
I too would like to see a v4 module,but don't hold your breath! ;D
Paul.
When i questioned this i was told that they no longer potted that module,so i assume that as it is now "old hat" and it's not worth the effort in hiding the contents of the hardware.
Of course working out what the eprom code is doing is another thing!
I was intrigued when Bob said that knowing what he knows now about dsp code,modest improvements could be had with the final clipper on the 8200.
But as RealityCheckr correctly points out,servicing and spares can be problematic for legacy products,let alone upgrades for them.
I too would like to see a v4 module,but don't hold your breath! ;D
Paul.
Going in and doing mods as you guys are suggesting to an old product like an 8200 just ain't gonna happen.
When a current product gets beyond the 5 year mark or so, much of whats in the code becomes forgotten, and if someone leaves, chances are they take a piece of the knowledge with them. The current crew COULD go in and figure out the code to make mods, but it really isn't worth the time to do that. These processors have thousands and thousands of lines of code, and each one interacts with the other in certain ways.
Not being intimately aware of these interactions either due to dusty memory, or by not being the one who wrote various parts of the code leads to a LOT of down time. You're better off re-doing the whole thing, and when you have to do that, you might as well spend the time on a new processor with better features.
When you have limited resources, and stiff competition, you've gotta keep moving forward, and not waste time on a dead end product!
-C
When a current product gets beyond the 5 year mark or so, much of whats in the code becomes forgotten, and if someone leaves, chances are they take a piece of the knowledge with them. The current crew COULD go in and figure out the code to make mods, but it really isn't worth the time to do that. These processors have thousands and thousands of lines of code, and each one interacts with the other in certain ways.
Not being intimately aware of these interactions either due to dusty memory, or by not being the one who wrote various parts of the code leads to a LOT of down time. You're better off re-doing the whole thing, and when you have to do that, you might as well spend the time on a new processor with better features.
When you have limited resources, and stiff competition, you've gotta keep moving forward, and not waste time on a dead end product!
-C
For boxes like the 8100, you have to send them to 3rd party people who repair them. It's funny how there are still so many who love the 8100. When I demo a processor, my first comparison is not with an Omnia 6 or 8500... it's "can this beat what I've done with my 8100/Ariane combo". Rarely is it better, more often it's close. In the case of Orban products, the newer units sound like more synthetic versions of the 8100 while you can always hear the mix in progress with an Omnia (rather than the mix flowing in an Ariane/8100 combo).
Usually it takes an Ariane in front of an 8100, Omnia 6 or Optimod 8500 to make them sound right. IMHO, when you strip it down dB by dB, my 8100 is about as loud and clean and as (or more) listenable than its digital counterparts.
If I had my choice, I'd rather have an 8100XT2 on than my 8500. The 8500 then can be used with an Eventide for my HD-1
Usually it takes an Ariane in front of an 8100, Omnia 6 or Optimod 8500 to make them sound right. IMHO, when you strip it down dB by dB, my 8100 is about as loud and clean and as (or more) listenable than its digital counterparts.
If I had my choice, I'd rather have an 8100XT2 on than my 8500. The 8500 then can be used with an Eventide for my HD-1
- Status