Optimod 8200 closest preset to 8100+XT2

[cgould]

And that's YOUR opinion.

If the world agreed, then there would be no digital processor sales, and it would be impossible to find an 8100 anywhere...e-bay or elsewhere because they would be so good and so damn loud no one would give them up, and there would be no need for digital.

Being a fan of retro sound is fine and all...it has its place just like tube gear and such...but..really. those old boxes cannot compete in this realm unless the market is considerably quieter than most. Trust me. I'm one who held onto an 8100 / XT2 for the longest...but alas, the new gear was able to get me closet to what I was really looking for all along, and I never looked back after that.

Now...if you WANT the sound of the 8100 XT, and that's what floats your boat...then not much will really duplicate that sound. Not because they cant, but because the markets as a whole have spoken...with their wallets. Now you can find 8100's pretty much anytime you want to by looking at the retired for good processor market called EBay and such.

-C

 

[whit979]

There are those out there, too, that attempt to emulate that sound with the newer processors, which is entertaining in its own right--but Cornelius makes a valid point. It's not that there shouldn't be a fond place in our hearts for that sound; it's the fact that newer units can provide even more clarity, loudness and product dependability than a unit as old as the 8100 can. When we signed on with our Omnia.One a couple of weeks ago, I thought we should pursue that 'retro' sound. I quickly realized that the unit offers benefits that far outweigh any feelings of nostalgia that I might have.

 

[wgliradio]

I disagree. I find the 8100, for whatever depth of loudness you want to create, holds its own against digital boxes today. And I think my point gets made when people still shell out $4000-5000 for 8100's with XT2's. In fact, I know someone who is running an 8100/XT2 with just a Compellor in front and they smoke the Omnia 6's and 8400's on Long Island.

Trust me. I've processed approx 75 stations over the last 10 years with no complaints and have been asked to do others by word of mouth. I'll admit my weaknesses in a minute, but when it comes to audio, it's a passion and my biggest strength.

;D

 

[cgould]

OK...so we have 75 stations out of thousands and thousands going the other way.

Yes. I can believe that

-C

I disagree. I find the 8100, for whatever depth of loudness you want to create, holds its own against digital boxes today. And I think my point gets made when people still shell out $4000-5000 for 8100's with XT2's. In fact, I know someone who is running an 8100/XT2 with just a Compellor in front and they smoke the Omnia 6's and 8400's on Long Island.

Trust me. I've processed approx 75 stations over the last 10 years with no complaints and have been asked to do others by word of mouth. I'll admit my weaknesses in a minute, but when it comes to audio, it's a passion and my biggest strength.

;D

 

[cgould]

The tighter spectrum control in todays DSP algorithms ALONE are enough to gain you a noticeable edge in loudness over older analog gear.

In DSP you're able to do things one can only dream of in analog in terms of spectrum management. Even the the extra crap that comes from an analog box's safetey clipper (along with analog composite clipping) itself can rob you of loudness performance. Why? because they pollute the "out of audio band" spectrum, which only serves to add to your total modulation without gaining much audible loudness. It's like adding momentary subcarriers to the FM signal that only kick in when there are cymbal crashes, or spoken "esses".

So, if you're willing to look the other way, you might be able to get an analog box to "stand up" to any DSP processor, but you'd be shooting yourself in the foot the whole time. if you back them down to the point where all things are equal, then you see a disparity in loudness...unless the DSP processors are not being pushed very hard.

I'm not saying 8100's are horrible processors at all. They are beautiful works of analog engineering...but their time is in the past. The world moves on.

-C

 

[wgliradio]

OK...so we have 75 stations out of thousands and thousands going the other way.

Yes. I can believe that

No no, 70% of those stations are using digital. I'm just saying my experience includes digital and analog. As I dial around using my Day Sequerra, the key to loudness in the field is 135%

 

[W1DAN]

Hi All:

This has been a very interesting thread.

As a hobbyist (I'm a broadcast engineer too, but in TV), I have enjoyed studying the circuitry and techniques of analog broadcast processing (time constants, clipping, filtering, etc). There is not too much info (theory of operation) about the digital techniques, but as a listener/reader experience a couple of things:

1) From what I have read the digital boxes are capable of more loudness because they can incorporate delay in the soft limiters. This reduced the overshoot that would normally be grabbed by a diode clipper. This provides reduced distortion.

2) I am betting that there is even better clipping distortion reduction incorporated in the digital boxes as per the analog units.

I am guessing an average station processed digitally is 1-2db louder than an analog station with a good processor.

As an interesting observation, I also listen to shortwave radio. There are a few stations that have become louder and cleaner than the standard level of loudness. I am guessing they are using later digital processing (like a 9400 instead of a 9105A). This is similar to my experiences with AM and FM as stations upgrade from analog.

To me, the broadcast stations are louder and cleaner, but the psychological clues (the momentary grunge of the clipping of peaks and the dynamics of an analog compressor/limiter) are missing for both good and bad. When I initially tune to a heavily processed station, it takes longer for me to determine what song is playing because of this generic "wall of sound", as compared to the older analog processing that probably is not pushed as hard.

I'd enjoy your thoughts and opinions here.

Thanks,
Dan
W1DAN

 

[RealityCheckr]

Oh, so that is where your claims come from. Off-the-air mod monitoring is problematic because any noise in the signal looks like extra modulation.

I find that my own station looks like 130% if I monitor off the air.

So, if that is your basis of "comparison" it is no wonder you think everyone but you cheats. There are cheaters out there, but no where near as many as one would think if you simply tune in stations with out optimal reception.

OK...so we have 75 stations out of thousands and thousands going the other way.

Yes. I can believe that

No no, 70% of those stations are using digital. I'm just saying my experience includes digital and analog. As I dial around using my Day Sequerra, the key to loudness in the field is 135%

 

[rorban]

When you have limited resources, and stiff competition, you've gotta keep moving forward, and not waste time on a dead end product!

Agreed. Our engineering staff is fully occupied with new product development and, to a lesser extent, maintenance of software on currently shipping products. Most of our newer products (i.e., those that do not require ROM replacements for upgrades) have gotten at least one free downloadable upgrade during their lifetimes that added features beyond those advertised when the unit was originally sold. But there is only so much we can do while still moving forward in this very competitive environment, particularly in today's economy.

Bob Orban

 

[cgould]

Hi All:

<snip>

1) From what I have read the digital boxes are capable of more loudness because they can incorporate delay in the soft limiters. This reduced the overshoot that would normally be grabbed by a diode clipper. This provides reduced distortion.

2) I am betting that there is even better clipping distortion reduction incorporated in the digital boxes as per the analog units.

I am guessing an average station processed digitally is 1-2db louder than an analog station with a good processor.

<snip>

To me, the broadcast stations are louder and cleaner, but the psychological clues (the momentary grunge of the clipping of peaks and the dynamics of an analog compressor/limiter) are missing for both good and bad. When I initially tune to a heavily processed station, it takes longer for me to determine what song is playing because of this generic "wall of sound", as compared to the older analog processing that probably is not pushed as hard.

I'd enjoy your thoughts and opinions here.

Thanks,
Dan
W1DAN

All true observations. With distortion canceled clipping (just to pick out one aspect), we now have the ability to make extremely tight filtering that we were only able to have wet dreams about during the analog days -- not only that, but you can use filters that cannot be done in analog. Well, not in any practical & affordable way for commercial production. Because of this, the distortion canceling algorithms in todays DSP boxes are just untouchable in analog. This yields much better (and stable) performance during loudness wars.

In just about every aspect there is to audio processing, DSP opens the doors on a realm of possibilities that is just mind boggling. Analog hit its peak with the 8100's and Unity 2000's of the world (and even the analog stuff I did in the past that has only seen limited exposure in the world). By the late 80's / early 90's Analog processing reached its limits.

To show the power of DSP processing today as an example - It only took me about 3 months to model my last analog processor in DSP, and it took YEARS to develop & build that thing. In DSP, it was a piece of cake to do - and that was done knowing only a fraction of what I know about DSP processing development today!

The rest of the almost 3 years after that achievement were spent pushing the boundaries, and having a blast coming up with new things...and the only limitation is my imagination. The more I do, the more I learn, the more ideas spark away in my head as a result! The ideas come to me faster than I can develop them.

THAT is a FUN position to be in.

I would never go back to analog processing design. Old news...dead tech. WAAAY to limited.

-C

 

[audiophile.]

And that's YOUR opinion.

If the world agreed, then there would be no digital processor sales, and it would be impossible to find an 8100 anywhere...e-bay or elsewhere because they would be so good and so damn loud no one would give them up, and there would be no need for digital.

Being a fan of retro sound is fine and all...it has its place just like tube gear and such...but..really. those old boxes cannot compete in this realm unless the market is considerably quieter than most. Trust me. I'm one who held onto an 8100 / XT2 for the longest...but alas, the new gear was able to get me closet to what I was really looking for all along, and I never looked back after that.

Now...if you WANT the sound of the 8100 XT, and that's what floats your boat...then not much will really duplicate that sound. Not because they cant, but because the markets as a whole have spoken...with their wallets. Now you can find 8100's pretty much anytime you want to by looking at the retired for good processor market called EBay and such.

-C

I saw a 8100/XT2 for $4500 bucks at Dayton Hamvention last week and it sold very quickly!

Honestly The Unity 2000 blows away stuff like the FMT3.

I only have had a chance to run a ONE on AM, and the "hot" presets sounded fairly distorted even in the headphone jack.

I was able to find other presets that were cleaner, but with all this alleged distortion cancelling power you'd think it would have just sounded busy or mushy and not so distorted...

 

[FFoti1]

Honestly The Unity 2000 blows away stuff like the FMT3.

I only have had a chance to run a ONE on AM, and the "hot" presets sounded fairly distorted even in the headphone jack.

I was able to find other presets that were cleaner, but with all this alleged distortion cancelling power you'd think it would have just sounded busy or mushy and not so distorted...

As the developer of both the Unity and FMT3, I'll challenge that!

The Unity had it's high points, but overall the FMT3 offers better distortion management, filtering, and dynamics over the UNITY. End result is added loudness for the same audio quality.

-Frank Foti

 

[12vdc]

The Unity had its high points, but overall the FMT3 offers better distortion management, filtering, and dynamics over the UNITY. End result is added loudness for the same audio quality.

-Frank Foti

How does the FMT3 compare to the Omnia.One-FM in that regard?

 

[FFoti1]

How does the FMT3 compare to the Omnia.One-FM in that regard?

Omnia.One has further refinements in dynamics, clipping/dist control, and filtering compared to the FMT3. This yields improved sonic performance, because it employs more powerful DSP as compared to what's in the FMT3.

-Frank Foti

 

[The F Mister]

That’s why I don't understand why second hand 3FMT are going for about the same price as new One's. At least here in the Netherlands. May it have something to do with the fact that people (clearly shown in this topic) hold on to much on nostalgic feelings? And loose all objectivity when they part with it? It's nice to see that the manufacturers don't and look forward bringing us what IS possible and not hold on to what was possible.

 

[W1DAN]

Cornelius:

Thanks for your reply.

When you say you modeled your analog processor, do you mean that you were able to copy it in DSP code on a development platform, or just determine the specs?

I played around with an Analog Devices DSP platform a few years ago. This had shown me the potential you are achieving in the digital realm, but it is a very high learning curve. I'd like to attempt to write some code for compression, limiting and clipping someday for ham AM, but am too busy to actually do it these days!

On the listening side, the digital processors really shine when not pushed too hard. Super clean compared to the old gear.

But I still enjoy figuring out the tricks that the old gear had.

Thanks again,
Dan

 

[cgould]

And that's YOUR opinion.

If the world agreed, then there would be no digital processor sales, and it would be impossible to find an 8100 anywhere...e-bay or elsewhere because they would be so good and so damn loud no one would give them up, and there would be no need for digital.

Being a fan of retro sound is fine and all...it has its place just like tube gear and such...but..really. those old boxes cannot compete in this realm unless the market is considerably quieter than most. Trust me. I'm one who held onto an 8100 / XT2 for the longest...but alas, the new gear was able to get me closet to what I was really looking for all along, and I never looked back after that.

Now...if you WANT the sound of the 8100 XT, and that's what floats your boat...then not much will really duplicate that sound. Not because they cant, but because the markets as a whole have spoken...with their wallets. Now you can find 8100's pretty much anytime you want to by looking at the retired for good processor market called EBay and such.

-C

I saw a 8100/XT2 for $4500 bucks at Dayton Hamvention last week and it sold very quickly!

Honestly The Unity 2000 blows away stuff like the FMT3.

I only have had a chance to run a ONE on AM, and the "hot" presets sounded fairly distorted even in the headphone jack.

I was able to find other presets that were cleaner, but with all this alleged distortion cancelling power you'd think it would have just sounded busy or mushy and not so distorted...

The HOT presets probably WILL sound distorted. The hotter presets on any DSP box basically pushes the limits for folks who need to do that.

Now, if you take an analog box and push it to the same level of distortion, the DSP processor will win the loudness game.

I think that needs to be pointed out as I think some miss the point that is being made....and it isn't necessarily a bad thing on your part. The bench marks are so far in the past it is difficult to place where the reference is being made sometimes.

So, to put it another way...if you take an analog box and adjust it to the point of discomfort, and back off, and so the same for the DSP processor....and if things are TRULY equal in your test, the DSP box will outperform.

The presets are starting points. If the distortion sounds objectionable, than it's probably cranked way higher than it needs to be in your market...and you should back it down to suit to taste. It's like using someone else's recipe to cook your favorite dish. Every now and again, the creator of the recipe will nail it for you....more often than not, it takes some tweaking of the spices to get the flavor to your liking.

-C

 

[cgould]

Cornelius:

Thanks for your reply.

When you say you modeled your analog processor, do you mean that you were able to copy it in DSP code on a development platform, or just determine the specs?

I was able to copy it in DSP code on a development platform. This in itself was a vital goal I set. If I was truly learning anything, then the model in DSP needed to match what the analog unit did EXACTLY. After that, I was able to move forward.

-C

 

[stace]

Gee I find it it hard to believe someone could think a Unity 2000i could sound better than an Omnia 3fmt. The Unity by 3fmt standards is very inflexible, inconsistant, and harsh. The 3fmt sounds great when its not asked too much of. For that you need to shop higher up the shelf. Haven't heard the Omnia one, but glad your seeing success with yours Whit.

 

[A Guy From Uruguay]

Suggestion for an Optimod 8200 preset to emulate the Optimod 8100

AGC DRIVE 10
AGC RELEASE 0.5
MB DRIVE 13
MB RELEASE FAST (sound texture of the 8100)
MB CLIP -0.4
FINAL CLIP +0.3
BAND 3&4 45
BASS COUP 75

I think this preset comes quite close to the 8100 sound.

Suggestions for further improvement are welcome.

P.S. A Stereomaxx precedes my 8200 (settings: 4/4/7)