Optimod-AM 9400 manual

[westlife]

Here it is, if you want to gain some insight into what makes it tick:

ftp://ftp.orban.com/9400/Documentation/9400%20Manual%20(eBook).pdf

<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>

 

[fm_engineer]

I scanned through the other day and it seems the mono section of the 9400 is pretty much the same as the 9200. The presets all looked the same and it still has the old red, yellow, green, and NRCS pre-emphasis curves. I do not believe there is anything new unless you are doing stereo or HD or want to control by IP.

I wonder if all of the presets still use the red curve as a default. I personally never cared for the way Optimod tried to cram high frequency energy through radios. Pre-emphasis with multiband processing just doesn't make sense to me on AM anyway!




> Here it is, if you want to gain some insight into what makes
> it tick:
>
ftp://> ftp.orban.com/9400/Documentation/9400%20Manual%20(eBook).pdf
>

 

[westlife]

> I scanned through the other day and it seems the mono
> section of the 9400 is pretty much the same as the 9200.
> The presets all looked the same and it still has the old
> red, yellow, green, and NRCS pre-emphasis curves. I do not
> believe there is anything new unless you are doing stereo or
> HD or want to control by IP.

Yup, that's basically it. It's basically a stereo version of the 9200, with a separate processing path for digital audio. Compared to the legendary <a target="_blank" href=http://www.orban.com/products/radio/am/9100b2/>9100B2</a>, the 9400 has only has 5 bands in the multiband processor instead of 6, doesn't have true C-Quam matrix limiting, doesn't offer any audio bandwidths higher than 9.5 kHz (which is bad for countries like Japan and Australia, where hi-fi AM Stereo broadcasts using the 9100's 12.5 kHz bandwidth are common), and still can't quite match the 9100's "world-class" analog signature sound.

> I wonder if all of the presets still use the red curve as a
> default. I personally never cared for the way Optimod tried
> to cram high frequency energy through radios. Pre-emphasis
> with multiband processing just doesn't make sense to me on
> AM anyway!

With the 9200 and 9400, this problem is exaggerated because only one processing band is used to control all audio frequencies above 3 kHz, and that's where the pre-emphasis has its greatest effect. The 9100 splits this range between its fifth (3.7-6.2 kHz) and sixth (6.2+ kHz) processing bands, which helps it handle the pre-emphasis without needing to use so much clipping on the high frequencies. When set to NRSC pre-emphasis and 12.5 kHz bandwidth, the 9100 can deliver wideband AM Stereo audio that sounds better than many FM stations.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>

 

[fm_engineer]

> > I scanned through the other day and it seems the mono
> > section of the 9400 is pretty much the same as the 9200.
> > The presets all looked the same and it still has the old
> > red, yellow, green, and NRCS pre-emphasis curves. I do
> not
> > believe there is anything new unless you are doing stereo
> or
> > HD or want to control by IP.
>
> Yup, that's basically it. It's basically a stereo version
> of the 9200, with a separate processing path for digital
> audio. Compared to the legendary 9100B2, the 9400 has only
> has 5 bands in the multiband processor instead of 6, doesn't
> have true C-Quam matrix limiting, doesn't offer any audio
> bandwidths higher than 9.5 kHz (which is bad for countries
> like Japan and Australia, where hi-fi AM Stereo broadcasts
> using the 9100's 12.5 kHz bandwidth are common), and still
> can't quite match the 9100's "world-class" analog signature
> sound.
>
> > I wonder if all of the presets still use the red curve as
> a
> > default. I personally never cared for the way Optimod
> tried
> > to cram high frequency energy through radios.
> Pre-emphasis
> > with multiband processing just doesn't make sense to me on
>
> > AM anyway!
>
> With the 9200 and 9400, this problem is exaggerated because
> only one processing band is used to control all audio
> frequencies above 3 kHz, and that's where the pre-emphasis
> has its greatest effect. The 9100 splits this range between
> its fifth (3.7-6.2 kHz) and sixth (6.2+ kHz) processing
> bands, which helps it handle the pre-emphasis without
> needing to use so much clipping on the high frequencies.
> When set to NRSC pre-emphasis and 12.5 kHz bandwidth, the
> 9100 can deliver wideband AM Stereo audio that sounds better
> than many FM stations.
>
I will not argue about wideband AM as I have heard many stations sound near FM quality during the stereo AM days. What you must recognize is those days are gone forever with the average receiver having something like 3.5 to 4 kHz response. The pre-emphasis is wasted energy that almost no radio can hear! I just had a client complaining about loudness on the AM dial with his 9200. When I arrived they were using the default red curve pre-emphasis with the Gregg preset. I simply turned off the red curve EQ and made the system flat. Now on most vehicle and alarm clock radios they are much louder! I only charged them 1 hour of work plus the drive up. The owner was so happy that he sent me an extra 5 hours worth of pay!

I believe analog sounding DSP is here. Maybe not with the 9200, but all of the newer Orban and Omnia stuff have surpassed the aliasing problems found in early DSP products. With base rates of 64 and 96 kHz, and clipping rates of 256-512 kHz (with algorithms that emulate 10 mHz clipping) DSP is far superior!

 

[Powell]

> I will not argue about wideband AM as I have heard many
> stations sound near FM quality during the stereo AM days.
> What you must recognize is those days are gone forever with
> the average receiver having something like 3.5 to 4 kHz
> response.


In GM cars yes. But the new one chip wonders are so wide (using the Toshiba LA2003 chip) that this presents a problem listening to an AM station that's running IBOC. Just a few years ago, radios were limited.



> The pre-emphasis is wasted energy that almost no
> radio can hear! I just had a client complaining about
> loudness on the AM dial with his 9200. When I arrived they
> were using the default red curve pre-emphasis with the Gregg
> preset. I simply turned off the red curve EQ and made the
> system flat. Now on most vehicle and alarm clock radios
> they are much louder! I only charged them 1 hour of work
> plus the drive up. The owner was so happy that he sent me
> an extra 5 hours worth of pay!

At the 1170 a friend of mine used the Gregg preset itself and played around with the high and lowest end a bit and it's loud and sounds good. I'd expect from what Bob Orban says, the 9400 has WAY far more processing power than the old 9200. And when brought up that a feature got left out he said "OH !" Noted to be put in in the next software update.



Powell

<P ID="signature">______________
NNNN</P>

 

[westlife]

> What you must recognize is those days are gone forever with
> the average receiver having something like 3.5 to 4 kHz
> response. The pre-emphasis is wasted energy that almost no
> radio can hear!

Actually, AM tuners are starting to get wider again because the manufacturers are so cheap these days that they don't include enough IF stages to get the same kind of tight selectivity that AM tuners used to have in the '80s and '90s. This gives better treble response, at the expense of poorer selectivity -- which will make AM IBOC a nightmare because on these cheap (but good-sounding) radios, an IBOC signal might cause annoying interference to any signal within +/- 50 kHz of it, plus the background hiss and crappy-sounding narrowband audio on the IBOC signal itself will be much more noticeable. On some of these radios, the selectivity is so poor that a strong analog AM signal on 850 kHz will be heard equally well on 830, 840, 850, 860, and 870 kHz!

> I believe analog sounding DSP is here. Maybe not with the
> 9200, but all of the newer Orban and Omnia stuff have
> surpassed the aliasing problems found in early DSP products.

The DSP in the Optimod 9200 is now decade-old technology, and even though the latest software for it is very good, the 9200 has earned a reputation as having a cold "digital" sound, much like the Optimod-FM 8200. If Orban wants to convince enough existing 9100 owners to install a new 9400, they will need to make it clear whether or not the 9400 is based upon all new DSP technology, or if it's still using the same 10-year-old design as the 9200, just doubled to make it stereo. Because if that's the case (old DSP in a new box) then I don't think many stations will be hauling their old 9100s off to the dumpster just yet!
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>

 

[fm_engineer]

> > I will not argue about wideband AM as I have heard many
> > stations sound near FM quality during the stereo AM days.
>
> > What you must recognize is those days are gone forever
> with
> > the average receiver having something like 3.5 to 4 kHz
> > response.
>
>
> In GM cars yes. But the new one chip wonders are so wide
> (using the Toshiba LA2003 chip) that this presents a problem
> listening to an AM station that's running IBOC. Just a few
> years ago, radios were limited.
>
>
>
> > The pre-emphasis is wasted energy that almost no
> > radio can hear! I just had a client complaining about
> > loudness on the AM dial with his 9200. When I arrived
> they
> > were using the default red curve pre-emphasis with the
> Gregg
> > preset. I simply turned off the red curve EQ and made the
>
> > system flat. Now on most vehicle and alarm clock radios
> > they are much louder! I only charged them 1 hour of work
> > plus the drive up. The owner was so happy that he sent me
>
> > an extra 5 hours worth of pay!
>
> At the 1170 a friend of mine used the Gregg preset itself
> and played around with the high and lowest end a bit and
> it's loud and sounds good. I'd expect from what Bob Orban
> says, the 9400 has WAY far more processing power than the
> old 9200. And when brought up that a feature got left out he
> said "OH !" Noted to be put in in the next software update.
>
>
>
>
> Powell
>

I'm sure the DSP power is many times greater than the 9200. It would have to be in order to run the stereo, mono, and HD paths. While we are discussing AM processing, does anyone use the Omnia AM processors? Are the boxes flat, or do they include NRSC and other pre-emphasis settings like the 9200?

 

[westlife]

> While we are discussing AM processing, does anyone
> use the Omnia AM processors? Are the boxes flat, or do they
> include NRSC and other pre-emphasis settings like the 9200?

All AM audio processors made since 1987 include the NRSC pre-emphasis curve. Orban claims they pioneered the concept of AM pre-emphasis and "brick-wall" bandwidth filtering with their Optimod-AM 9000 in 1978, but the CRL PMC-300 introduced these same features a few years earlier.

The difference with AM Optimods, though, is that they put the pre-emphasis ahead of the multiband processing, which allows greater treble density than CRL and Omnia AM processors which run the multiband processing "flat" and only introduce pre-emphasis ahead of the final peak limiter/clipper.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>

 

[fm_engineer]

> > While we are discussing AM processing, does anyone
> > use the Omnia AM processors? Are the boxes flat, or do
> they
> > include NRSC and other pre-emphasis settings like the
> 9200?
>
> All AM audio processors made since 1987 include the NRSC
> pre-emphasis curve. Orban claims they pioneered the concept
> of AM pre-emphasis and "brick-wall" bandwidth filtering with
> their Optimod-AM 9000 in 1978, but the CRL PMC-300
> introduced these same features a few years earlier.
>
> The difference with AM Optimods, though, is that they put
> the pre-emphasis ahead of the multiband processing, which
> allows greater treble density than CRL and Omnia AM
> processors which run the multiband processing "flat" and
> only introduce pre-emphasis ahead of the final peak
> limiter/clipper.
>

I do not believe that pre-emphasis is required by law. In fact, many 50 kW flamethrowers turn off the pre-emphasis to gain loudness. In my opinion, the pre-emphasis is wasted energy!

 

[FFoti]

> The difference with AM Optimods, though, is that they put
> the pre-emphasis ahead of the multiband processing, which
> allows greater treble density than CRL and Omnia AM
> processors which run the multiband processing "flat" and
> only introduce pre-emphasis ahead of the final peak
> limiter/clipper.

The comment about the Omnia.AM processor is INCORRECT!! The NRSC preemphasis is adjustable, and it is inserted before the 5-Band limiter. The boost can be set in 2dB increments.

Omnia.AM is capable of as much treble density as any other product.

-Frank Foti

 

[FFoti]

> I do not believe that pre-emphasis is required by law. In
> fact, many 50 kW flamethrowers turn off the pre-emphasis to
> gain loudness. In my opinion, the pre-emphasis is wasted
> energy!

You are correct. Preemphasis for AM is optional, and not required by law. The NRSC 10kHz low pass filter is required.

-Frank Foti

 

[westlife]

> You are correct. Preemphasis for AM is optional, and not
> required by law. The NRSC 10kHz low pass filter is required.

NRSC pre-emphasis is mandatory for stations transmitting C-Quam AM Stereo in the USA and for all AM stations, mono and Stereo alike, in Canada.

<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>

 

[westlife]

> The comment about the Omnia.AM processor is INCORRECT!! The
> NRSC preemphasis is adjustable, and it is inserted before
> the 5-Band limiter. The boost can be set in 2dB increments.

Your web site for the Omnia AM series mentions "Omnia exclusives like a pre-emphasis section placed behind the multi-band limiters to create a more consistent, natural sound." (emphasis yours) Can you clarify the wording of this?

> Omnia.AM is capable of as much treble density as any other
> product.

I can't comment on that because all the stations using Omnia AM processors within my listening range are transmitting IBOC, with analog audio bandwidths as low as 4 kHz. Meanwhile, all the stations using Optimod 9100s in my area are running them at full NRSC bandwidth. (There's even one station which sounds like they are using CRL processing set to 13 kHz audio bandwidth, but I won't squeal on them.)

But if you can convince one of the NYC stations (or one of the big 50 kW clear channels with consistent skywave reception here) to broadcast a music format in full-bandwidth C-Quam AM Stereo using your Omnia AM processor, then maybe I can offer a direct comparison between it and the Optimod 9100.

<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>

 

[FFoti]

> > The comment about the Omnia.AM processor is INCORRECT!!
> The
> > NRSC preemphasis is adjustable, and it is inserted before
> > the 5-Band limiter. The boost can be set in 2dB
> increments.
>
> Your web site for the Omnia AM series mentions "Omnia
> exclusives like a pre-emphasis section placed behind
> the multi-band limiters to create a more consistent, natural
> sound." (emphasis yours) Can you clarify the wording of
> this?

I'll have to look into this websight comment, and if that is what was written, then it is a mistake. The product has always had adjustable preemphasis in front of the multiband section.

You should base your opinion and views upon actual useage of a product.

>
> > Omnia.AM is capable of as much treble density as any other
>
> > product.
>
> I can't comment on that because all the stations using Omnia
> AM processors within my listening range are transmitting
> IBOC, with analog audio bandwidths as low as 4 kHz.
> Meanwhile, all the stations using Optimod 9100s in my area
> are running them at full NRSC bandwidth. (There's even one
> station which sounds like they are using CRL processing set
> to 13 kHz audio bandwidth, but I won't squeal on them.)

> But if you can convince one of the NYC stations (or one of
> the big 50 kW clear channels with consistent skywave
> reception here) to broadcast a music format in
> full-bandwidth C-Quam AM Stereo using your Omnia AM
> processor, then maybe I can offer a direct comparison
> between it and the Optimod 9100.

My comment is based upon customer feedback that we have from many major AM stations across the Country.

-Frank Foti

 

[RadioDoc]

> > You are correct. Preemphasis for AM is optional, and not
> > required by law. The NRSC 10kHz low pass filter is
> required.
>
> NRSC pre-emphasis is mandatory for stations transmitting
> C-Quam AM Stereo in the USA and for all AM stations, mono
> and Stereo alike, in Canada.
>

You're starting to get out of hand with this.

You know what he meant. Leave it at that.

Move on, please...<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[westlife]

> My comment is based upon customer feedback that we have from
> many major AM stations across the Country.

But isn't it safe to say that a majority of stations using Omnia AM processors in the USA are operating with a reduced analog audio bandwidth (6 kHz or less)? At least it seems that way.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>

 

[FFoti]

NO!

It is not safe to say that a majority of them are operating with reduced bandwidth. Omnia.AM has outsold the competition by a 3:1 margin for quite awhile. A lot longer than AM stations have been reducing the BW due to HD Radio.

-Frank Foti

> > My comment is based upon customer feedback that we have
> from
> > many major AM stations across the Country.
>
> But isn't it safe to say that a majority of stations using
> Omnia AM processors in the USA are operating with a reduced
> analog audio bandwidth (6 kHz or less)? At least it seems
> that way.
>

 

[westlife]

> You're starting to get out of hand with this.
>
> You know what he meant. Leave it at that.
>
> Move on, please...

What's wrong with posting the facts? I was simply clarifying Mr. Foti's statement with additional information.<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>

 

[RadioDoc]

> > You're starting to get out of hand with this.
> >
> > You know what he meant. Leave it at that.
> >
> > Move on, please...
>
> What's wrong with posting the facts? I was simply
> clarifying Mr. Foti's statement with additional information.
>


OK, I guess I misunderstood your tone. My apologies.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[FFoti]

> > You are correct. Preemphasis for AM is optional, and not
> > required by law. The NRSC 10kHz low pass filter is
> required.
>
> NRSC pre-emphasis is mandatory for stations transmitting
> C-Quam AM Stereo in the USA and for all AM stations, mono
> and Stereo alike, in Canada.

Kevin,

Not trying to belabor the discussion, but I just checked the NRSC websight, and do not see where preemphasis is mandatory for AM-Stereo. What reference are you basing this on?

-Frank Foti