• 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

Processing clips

Evert, A friend of my invited me to "play" with his One this saturday and I'm shore he won't mind if I took a sample to upload. So I will run by some samples posted on the processing server. And I won't normalize for Frank's sake, only code it in mp3 (it's a joke frank ;) honestly).

I will bring by my dspx and see how these two hold up against each other, should be a fun saturday.
 
Kevin Tekel said:
I've uploaded some new processing clips, based on the three sample songs that have been provided (Tina Arena, Styx, and Elton John) as well as two other examples of songs that often sound bad when run through "major-market" FM audio processing (Sarah McLachan and LeAnn Rimes).

All were processed by the wideband audio processor built into John Burnill's Sonos I (version 1.0.27), which is basically a scaled-down version of the MBL4 multiband processing which is also the heart of the Inovonics Omega FM hardware box processor.

Using some innovative settings (many of which totally go against Burnill's own recommendations!), I have been able to eliminate virtually all traces of "pumping" and other wideband processing artifacts, while still preserving competitive loudness and brightness. In fact, it often sounds cleaner than multiband processing, because it isn't boosting the bass and treble only to have the limiters smash it back down to a flat response!
Click to expand...

Since I didn't have a copy of LeAnn Rimes I took your sample and ran it true my setup. So this would make the setup as follows:
Modified Sonos I->Aphex 204 Aural exciter and Big Bottom->DSPX-FM. :)

Maybe you could upload the original LeAnn Rimes, that would be great?
 
The F Mister said:
Since I didn't have a copy of LeAnn Rimes I took your sample and ran it true my setup. So this would make the setup as follows:
Modified Sonos I->Aphex 204 Aural exciter and Big Bottom->DSPX-FM. :)
Click to expand...
That's a bit like trying to make steak out of hamburger, since Sonos already took care of AGC'ing, compressing, limiting, clipping, and lowpass-filtering the audio for FM Stereo transmission.

Maybe you could upload the original LeAnn Rimes, that would be great?
Click to expand...
I uploaded the unprocessed versions of the LeAnn Rimes and Sarah McLachlan songs I used. These were ripped from CD by Exact Audio Copy and adjusted to the standard ReplayGain level by WaveGain. I also used WaveGain on the three other songs before processing them.
 
Orban has some of their own processing clips on their site:

http://www.orban.com/products/radio/fm/8400hd/

I decided to compare their first analog Optimod 8400 clip to my little Sonos I setup. I re-uploaded it to Goran's server, with the only difference being that I increased its peak level to -1 dBfs in order to provide an equal comparison to all the other Sonos clips I've posted so far. Then I took the same song ("Ooh It's Kinda Crazy" by Canadian group soulDecision) from the original CD and ran it through Sonos.

First off, the CD is horrendously overprocessed and is going to sound smashed and trashed no matter what re-processing you put it through. That being said, the Optimod is definitely brighter and more aggressive, but analysis with Adobe Audition reveals that the 8400 is only 1.945 dB (average RMS) louder on this clip than Sonos! That's pretty good, since Orban ranks the 8400 as being 2.5 dB louder than the 8200 at equal distortion levels.

What helped is that I just discovered that Sonos produces less bass distortion and slighter better loudness if you set the Input HPF (high-pass filter) to 2 Hz, as compared to the 40 Hz setting I was using before. It seems that on audio that is pre-clipped (such as is the case with almost all CDs these days!), the 40 Hz setting was tilting the square waves just like an old tube AM transmitter, while the 2 Hz setting doesn't tilt the incoming waveforms and thus allows the processing to act more effectively.
 
Kevin Tekel said:
The F Mister said:
Since I didn't have a copy of LeAnn Rimes I took your sample and ran it true my setup. So this would make the setup as follows:
Modified Sonos I->Aphex 204 Aural exciter and Big Bottom->DSPX-FM. :)
Click to expand...
That's a bit like trying to make steak out of hamburger, since Sonos already took care of AGC'ing, compressing, limiting, clipping, and lowpass-filtering the audio for FM Stereo transmission.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but your sample is not heavily processed so running it true my setup again isn't overdone for my taste and as said before because of the lack of the original I took you sample. I thought running it later without the sonos would give me and the others a funny comparison what your sonos adds (or not). Just for fun, not for practicality.
 
The F Mister said:
Exactly, but your sample is not heavily processed so running it true my setup again isn't overdone for my taste and as said before because of the lack of the original I took you sample.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call only ~2 dB quieter than an Optimod 8400 to be "not heavily processed". ;) It just sounds that way because it's wideband processing, and isn't hyping up the bass and treble (unlike your clip!).
 
The processing killer song has been uploaded. ;)

I have yet to hear any 75 uS FM processing, including my own, which does not tear up the first few "oohs" with major clipping distortion.
 
I have uploaded a Pet shop boys track called Minimal put through my modified 8100a/xt2 in to my exciter,then recorded from my tuner.

The track is taken from the 2006 Fundamental album.
I still love my 8100a/xt2 ;D
 
I just heard another good processing test song on the radio today: "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" by U2, a #1 hit from 1987. Typical processing flaws on this track include clipping on the tambourine rasps, AGC pullback when the bass drum kicks in, and pumping caused by the bass drum. I heard all three of these faults as it was being played on the #1 station in the #1 market, with the pumping being the most audible and annoying.
 
Just uploaded one using my username.wav. There is a little bit of noise due to receive location, but just looking for a critique. Was recorded off-air this afternoon.
 
Kevin,
On the Joshua tree album,also look at track 3,called with or without you!
listen for distortion on a processor when the guitar distorts with a heavy bass line.
This is near the beginning and near the end of the track,the 8200 does not fare well here,compared to my 8100a/xt2.

The track on the cd is clean,but most processors seem to create distortion easily on this track.

I will also upload the I still haven't found what i'm looking for track as well,through my 8100a/xt2.
 
Thanks for the great-sounding 8100/XT2 clips, Broadcast. It's no wonder why resale value for even a stock 8100 remains so high. With appropriate addons such as the XT2 or a pair of Prisms, it can still hold its own against the latest processors.

No offense to anyone who has spent their hard-earned cash on an Omnia or DSPX, but I have not been impressed by any of the audio samples of those offered so far. Maybe they're loud and bright on the air, but the digital clipping grunge is an instant turn-off and tune-out for me.

Of all the reasons to avoid an 8100 (high cost, high maintenance due to aging components, large rack space, high energy consumption, questionable status of used gear, complex installation/adjustment, etc.), on-air sound is definitely not one of them! :D
 
Because i have done upgrades/modifications to mine,it sounds cleaner and more detailed,than a standard one.
The problem is if you want do do serious upgrading to the 8100a and xt2,you need to beef up the power supply first,so you are not limited to opamp replacement.
It is a classic processor,and a joy to work on.

I have uploaded the U2 track that you mentioned before,left the settings as before.
I do not alter settings to optimise each track.

Regarding the prisms,i do not rate them much.
You can get the 8100a to sound bright,but i find the prisms/8100a inconsistent from track to track.
Also the prisms do require an agc before them,whilst the 8100a/xt2 works fine without any agc in front of the 8100a.
 
I was going to do the U2 songs through my wideband setup, but my CD is defective. Instead, I ran the LeAnn Rhymes song and something I wanted to hear, Martika-Toy Soldiers. Note, Toy Soldiers is taken from an iTunes AAC file (128kB/S).

I made one change to the setup from my previous clips, this time I turned on the Compellor's stereo enhance. I may not have mentioned it last time, but I'm in the US, so 75uS pre-emphasis was used.

The clips are labeled Martika-Toy Soldiers Compellor_TX4 and How Do I Live Compellor_TX4

Big thanks to Goran for setting up the server space.
 
Goran Tomas said:
No I haven't, I first recorded the clips and normalized the files afterwards to 0dBfs. But some software (Adobe Audition and Sound Forge are both examples) can indicate peaks with heavily peak processed audio as OVER, although they aren't....
Click to expand...

Not just peak-processed audio. This phenomenon occurs because DAE applications have no means of detecting clipping except searching for two or more consecutive samples at exactly 0.0000 dB (16-bit values 32767 or -32768). In the real world, that means a normalized square wave (technically not a product of overage clipping), or even the highest two samples of a normalized sine peak (if both are at exactly the same 16-bit sample value), can trigger false overage readings.

Conversely, this clipping detection method misses actual overshoot if it occurs between samples. I purposely rigged a very extreme example in http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7009/gibbsmo0.png to demonstrate. CoolEdit's clipping indicators do not illuminate on this waveform, and the statistics dialogue indicates a peaking level of 0 dB. That's technically correct as far as the samples go, but incorrect as far as the splined waveform is concerned (which could clip inside a D/A, and definitely if upsampled).

My experience agrees with yours: I've seen no evidence of flaws in CoolEdit's/Audition's normalize function. It's accurate (and dynamically linear) to the nth degree. Maybe the combination of visible inter-sample overshoot and false consecutive sample clipping indicator illumination is what has lead some to conclude its normalize function can be off by a fraction of a decibel?

If anyone is truly bugged by false clipping meter readings, normalize to -0.01 dB and the problem will vanish.

As to inter-sample overshoot, there is only one way to detect those in CoolEdit. Watch your meters during playback. If an inter-sample overshoot is encountered, the meters will spike one pixel higher on your screen than they normally would on a non-overshooting normalized peak. http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5354/cepoversw8.png shows this. In the left channel, one sample is touching exactly 0.0000 dB (16-bit 32767). It doesn't overshoot, and is not illuminating the clipping indicator. In the right channel, two non-consecutive samples are touching 0.0000 dB. It also doesn't illuminate the clipping indicator, but does technically overshoot - and the meter shows it. (The peak meters will also rise by this one extra pixel if truly clipped audio is playing - because virtually every two or more consecutive 0.0000 dB samples will exhibit some amount of Gibbs overshoot exceeding 0.0000 dB.)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom