M
menotti1
Guest
Have not heard the extreme, i do run the DSP_extra on an FM.i would say the sound is somewhere between the Omnia and Orban...been VERY pleased with the box.Ariane did wonders for it..
-
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
- Thread starter gtomas
- Start date
Part of your last post...
So...we should all send Orban bills for all the time spent hotrodding 8100's and XT chassis because they didn't quite fill the bill for us at the time, and we spent months "perfecting" mods on them?
Orban didn't see fit to implement these mods (some seem quite universal for end users) because he didn't feel these mods were big enough of an issue to address with design changes.
Hmmm...DAMN, I'm an idiot!
Need to send some invoices to Orban!
;D
Seriously though, Frank may have not felt it was a big deal, but he did try to help you! Your own doubts made you decide not to continue, so out with the Omnia for you!
The Orban sound is your preference, which is cool. We all like something different. Its what makes the world an interesting place...just the responses doesn't make your point of view look as unbiased as you claim. It's more like, you like the Orban sound, and didn't want to take the time to learn a new (or different) approach to processing, so you stuck with what you are comfortable with.
That's cool!
I'm the same way with cars, and I keep going back to the Saturn brand because I'm comfortable with them, and I'm not interested in spending too much time on the unknown, and trying something different when the Saturn brand of cars makes me happy consistently.
It would go a long way to just come out and say what's really behind the things you say.
Peace!
-C
So...we should all send Orban bills for all the time spent hotrodding 8100's and XT chassis because they didn't quite fill the bill for us at the time, and we spent months "perfecting" mods on them?
Orban didn't see fit to implement these mods (some seem quite universal for end users) because he didn't feel these mods were big enough of an issue to address with design changes.
Hmmm...DAMN, I'm an idiot!
Need to send some invoices to Orban!
;D
Seriously though, Frank may have not felt it was a big deal, but he did try to help you! Your own doubts made you decide not to continue, so out with the Omnia for you!
The Orban sound is your preference, which is cool. We all like something different. Its what makes the world an interesting place...just the responses doesn't make your point of view look as unbiased as you claim. It's more like, you like the Orban sound, and didn't want to take the time to learn a new (or different) approach to processing, so you stuck with what you are comfortable with.
That's cool!
I'm the same way with cars, and I keep going back to the Saturn brand because I'm comfortable with them, and I'm not interested in spending too much time on the unknown, and trying something different when the Saturn brand of cars makes me happy consistently.
It would go a long way to just come out and say what's really behind the things you say.
Peace!
-C
The F Mister said:
No, we still use 8100/XT2
But I'm adjusting an 8500 for another station right now (a favor promised long ago) so I'll be able to record you a clip for you. It will be 50 µs. Give me a couple of days... Which preset would you like?
Just so that it doesn't turn out I'm only criticizing Omnia, Orban is closed-in in it's own way. Actually, there are things I'd like to take from Omnia and put in Orban to make it sound better!
Regards,
Goran Tomas
cgould said:
That was more of a comment to myself. Sorry if it came out the wrong way.
And I'm not saying Orban is perfect in listening to their users. But now that you mention it though and thinking back, I would say they actually did adapt some things to user requests ("digital grunge" issue, composite clipping, separately adjustable FM/HD paths in 8500, recently improved windowed AGC). I'm not saying that to defend them (although I realize it will look that way) just as a fact.
But by far the company that listened most to their users is BW Broadcast!
I can agree with you on everything, other than that I didn't take the time and effort to learn different approach to processing and spend time with it. A lot of time. So I agree with you on everything, except that
Peace!
Regards,
Goran Tomas
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but Saturn cars are drastically different than they were five years ago. Today's Saturns are essentially rebadged Opel cars from Germany, and are no longer American designs. (Even the Chevrolet Cobalt is based on an Opel design.)cgould said:
I didn't mean that in the blunt way that it came across...just that if you know that a certain product is going to make you happy, is in line with your personal tastes, then you aren't going to be as willing to go far to make Brand X conform to your tastes -- especially when there are different goals in mind behind the formation of Brand X.
Yes, Orban does make changes to the digital boxes based on user input...so does Omnia! But note, if those suggestions are to make one box act like the other, neither company will go there!
-C
Goran Tomas said:No, we still use 8100/XT2
Which preset would you like?
Well I'm not familiar with the presets provided with the 8500 so I would say the one that suits the format of sweat jane best. Or comparable to the rocknroll preset used with the omnia.6 clip. And if you feel you have a better setting for this song please feel free to take more clips. I'll just download the crap out of the server
Thnx
menotti1 said:
I'm quit interested in that one either. Maybe the Ariane does wonders in this case with the HF transients and spare the limiters and clippers to go wrong.
Kevin T. Wrote:
German cars, eh? Must be why I still like the Saturn cars ;D
There are a number of things I like about Saturn, so I stick with them. The biggest thing I didn't like was the discontinuing of their own designs. But, the things I like still outweigh the things I don't...so I'm still reluctant to take all the time to find something I may like better. When they stop making me happy, I may do it, though!
-C
German cars, eh? Must be why I still like the Saturn cars ;D
There are a number of things I like about Saturn, so I stick with them. The biggest thing I didn't like was the discontinuing of their own designs. But, the things I like still outweigh the things I don't...so I'm still reluctant to take all the time to find something I may like better. When they stop making me happy, I may do it, though!
-C
Goran Tomas said:
So, you're saying you gave up too soon. My help to you was hardly any at all. I sent over one modified preset, and was awaiting feedback from you. But, you quit on the effort. I told you that your concern was not found, or shared by many satisfied Omnia customers. Still, I was more than willing to assist you in obtaining the signature that you were looking for.
That's much different than a discussion regarding a design modification to the product. On account of all this, your response seems like a cop out.
-Frank Foti
I
Info-warrior
Guest
Kevin
I love the CRL sound. The AM I used to work for had a CRL chain that became the backup when the new main processor was installed--I thought the CRL sounded competitive enough. The main processor there now is an Omnia 3 AM, which is a fine unit, although I never got to hear it at it's best since the frequency response of the station was limited to 5kHz when the Omnia was introduced.
If possible, I'd like to hear that CRL chain with less agressive settings as my former AM's sounded nice and smooth.
I love the CRL sound. The AM I used to work for had a CRL chain that became the backup when the new main processor was installed--I thought the CRL sounded competitive enough. The main processor there now is an Omnia 3 AM, which is a fine unit, although I never got to hear it at it's best since the frequency response of the station was limited to 5kHz when the Omnia was introduced.
If possible, I'd like to hear that CRL chain with less agressive settings as my former AM's sounded nice and smooth.
I uploaded a clip of the SMP-950 by itself being fed with Sonos on my PC being used as an AGC. I'm still working on tweaking the SMP, which involves getting out the soldering iron and changing some resistors, so it's not as quick as with today's digital processors. But I'm not touching the multiband limiter/HF band clipper -- it does a commendable job of handling the sibilance on "Sweet Jane" without ducking or tearing!
But I'm not touching the multiband limiter/HF band clipper -- it does a commendable job of handling the sibilance on "Sweet Jane" without ducking or tearing!Best whishes for 2008 to all colleagues and manufactures around here
Some introduction first, I am just a music lover passionate with processing units as anybody here, I am NOT on “loudness” side but more on “consistency from source to source & pleased sound” I don’t have the habit to “abuse any processing box”.
Some thoughts about Sweet Jane track and other thoughts.
1. Sweet Jane track did not recorded with Radio media on mind but only for Hi End Audio use as for example on “Classical music way” that’s reason have large HF dynamics, recording has made on a church with single-point-micing technique without any audio treatment.
2. Any analogue or digital “multiband” processing box did not designed with such track on mind, on your “Classical music” radio station will you apply a multiband processing? Definitely NOT, only that you may use is an “Protection Limit” or maybe a light two band scheme, Sweet Jane track must treated like an “Classical music” multi band processing is NOT appropriate for this, for me is useless to discuss how bad or good acts a multiband box with a classical way track at high density and clipping drive as for example “Broadcast” used to test his units, I open his tracks with an “Soundforge” and easily I can see that there is no left space for the music to “breath” especially on such “classical music way” track of Cowboy Junkies.
4. That which makes more noticeable “pullback” on 8200 than of 8100/xt2 with “S” of Sweet Jane track is NOT the multiband alone but the ahead AGC “Master Compressor makes holes” of dual band (Arian fits better here) plus the Gate action on multiband, on my 8200 has defeated the AGC, Gate, Phase Rotation and High Pass filter ahead is an AGC from an 8100 made it with spare cards 3, 4 and 5, (card 5 is strapped at XT mode, slow AGC) the “pullbacks” are the same (minimum) as on track from 8100/xt2 by “Broadcast” user. The differences from internal AGC are, better “consistency from source to source” and better “voice to music” balance, a well known problem on any version of 8200, that’s why all 8200 users prefers an outboard AGC. By the way the “pullback” with Omnia6 by GT is not noticeable to me and is best from all uploaded “aggressive” tracks, maybe have some lower density from other but at least the fine tune is the most appropriate for this track.
5. 8100/xt2 except that is a very good processor “for its days” is NOT a “Miracle” box even under any upgrade mods on other hand 8200 is Not just an digitized 8100/xt2 so is NOT fair to do any direct comparisons with an 8100/xt2.
Finally for those who “blinded by the charming of 8100/xt2” here are some serious differences which don’t take it on account as all make criticism on how “great” sound a 8100/xt2 instead of 8200, 8400 etc, the funny thing is that all users write opinions on how good sound an 8100/xt2 but actually that you taking about is not concerns the original 8100/xt2 , of course I agree the moded 8100/xt2 sounds more loud for the same perceived distortion if that is your goal, but why happens this?
AGC on 8100 is a dual band which is works more as Compressor/Limiter with infinity:1 ratios (depends from release pot setting as Bob say’s) AGC on 8200 is a dual band which works more as AGC with no high ratios as on 8100.
Gate on 8100 did not work “so tight” as on 8200 which is more “stringency” as “stringency” is all digital boxes instead of any analogue which is “more relaxed and forgiven” due its nature and variety of parts
Multiband on 8200 (at higher & lower bands) or any other today digital multiband works under “Gate” action plus some downward expander to avoid any rush-up noise,
XT2 has “absent” of any gating action or downward expander (by the way XT2 is a 5 band multiband unit and only original XT is a six band) for that reason is more noisy but with louder “aggressive” results instead of any digital gated low release multiband which is not so loud but is more musical than of XT2. General an 8100/xt2 is “bass shy” “dry mids” and “hard HF especially with OPA2134” as harder the drive of “safety clipper” so harder is the brilliance, 8100/xt2 characterized by “lack on HF and low extends” so the most of his energy is on “presence region” “euphonic midrange especially with OPA2134” thus louder.
Also I must notice you that, all sound samples on “clips” from an 8100/xt2 is NOT comes from an original standard 8100/xt2 (except one of tina arena 8100/xt2 Croatia radio?) but from an modified by “Broadcast” 8100/xt2 which I admit he done good job but what about with the original “vintage” sound character of 8100/xt2? for example the standard 8100/xt2 uses TL072 with its good and bad but on other hand this good and bad has added on the overall processing procedure giving the original famous 80’s sound character on 8100/xt2 that we all growing up and love, on moded 8100/xt2 “Broadcast” uses OPA2134 an excellent modern IC on data sheet with lower distortion etc but how this affect the 8100/xt2 original “vintage” loving sound? Didn’t you wonder? (I come on other post for that).
I must recall that by which successfully Frank Foti says.
“we try to mix oil with water?”
Best regards
XFon
Some introduction first, I am just a music lover passionate with processing units as anybody here, I am NOT on “loudness” side but more on “consistency from source to source & pleased sound” I don’t have the habit to “abuse any processing box”.
Some thoughts about Sweet Jane track and other thoughts.
1. Sweet Jane track did not recorded with Radio media on mind but only for Hi End Audio use as for example on “Classical music way” that’s reason have large HF dynamics, recording has made on a church with single-point-micing technique without any audio treatment.
2. Any analogue or digital “multiband” processing box did not designed with such track on mind, on your “Classical music” radio station will you apply a multiband processing? Definitely NOT, only that you may use is an “Protection Limit” or maybe a light two band scheme, Sweet Jane track must treated like an “Classical music” multi band processing is NOT appropriate for this, for me is useless to discuss how bad or good acts a multiband box with a classical way track at high density and clipping drive as for example “Broadcast” used to test his units, I open his tracks with an “Soundforge” and easily I can see that there is no left space for the music to “breath” especially on such “classical music way” track of Cowboy Junkies.
4. That which makes more noticeable “pullback” on 8200 than of 8100/xt2 with “S” of Sweet Jane track is NOT the multiband alone but the ahead AGC “Master Compressor makes holes” of dual band (Arian fits better here) plus the Gate action on multiband, on my 8200 has defeated the AGC, Gate, Phase Rotation and High Pass filter ahead is an AGC from an 8100 made it with spare cards 3, 4 and 5, (card 5 is strapped at XT mode, slow AGC) the “pullbacks” are the same (minimum) as on track from 8100/xt2 by “Broadcast” user. The differences from internal AGC are, better “consistency from source to source” and better “voice to music” balance, a well known problem on any version of 8200, that’s why all 8200 users prefers an outboard AGC. By the way the “pullback” with Omnia6 by GT is not noticeable to me and is best from all uploaded “aggressive” tracks, maybe have some lower density from other but at least the fine tune is the most appropriate for this track.
5. 8100/xt2 except that is a very good processor “for its days” is NOT a “Miracle” box even under any upgrade mods
on other hand 8200 is Not just an digitized 8100/xt2 so is NOT fair to do any direct comparisons with an 8100/xt2.Finally for those who “blinded by the charming of 8100/xt2
” here are some serious differences which don’t take it on account as all make criticism on how “great” sound a 8100/xt2 instead of 8200, 8400 etc, the funny thing is that all users write opinions on how good sound an 8100/xt2 but actually that you taking about is not concerns the original 8100/xt2 , of course I agree the moded 8100/xt2 sounds more loud for the same perceived distortion if that is your goal, but why happens this? AGC on 8100 is a dual band which is works more as Compressor/Limiter with infinity:1 ratios (depends from release pot setting as Bob say’s) AGC on 8200 is a dual band which works more as AGC with no high ratios as on 8100.
Gate on 8100 did not work “so tight” as on 8200 which is more “stringency” as “stringency” is all digital boxes instead of any analogue which is “more relaxed and forgiven” due its nature and variety of parts
Multiband on 8200 (at higher & lower bands) or any other today digital multiband works under “Gate” action plus some downward expander to avoid any rush-up noise,
XT2 has “absent” of any gating action or downward expander (by the way XT2 is a 5 band multiband unit and only original XT is a six band) for that reason is more noisy but with louder “aggressive” results instead of any digital gated low release multiband which is not so loud but is more musical than of XT2. General an 8100/xt2 is “bass shy” “dry mids” and “hard HF especially with OPA2134” as harder the drive of “safety clipper” so harder is the brilliance, 8100/xt2 characterized by “lack on HF and low extends” so the most of his energy is on “presence region” “euphonic midrange especially with OPA2134” thus louder.
Also I must notice you that, all sound samples on “clips” from an 8100/xt2 is NOT comes from an original standard 8100/xt2 (except one of tina arena 8100/xt2 Croatia radio?) but from an modified by “Broadcast” 8100/xt2 which I admit he done good job but what about with the original “vintage” sound character of 8100/xt2? for example the standard 8100/xt2 uses TL072 with its good and bad but on other hand this good and bad has added on the overall processing procedure giving the original famous 80’s sound character on 8100/xt2 that we all growing up and love, on moded 8100/xt2 “Broadcast” uses OPA2134 an excellent modern IC on data sheet with lower distortion etc but how this affect the 8100/xt2 original “vintage” loving sound? Didn’t you wonder? (I come on other post for that).
I must recall that by which successfully Frank Foti says.
“we try to mix oil with water?”
Best regards
XFon
WHEW, what a post Fonorban...Very well put.This Sweet Jane sounds like it was recorded in some one's garage.Hardly the appropriate song to use for tweaking a processor.can't make chicken salad out of chicken
shit..sounds like they all gathered around one mic, fired up a joint and sang.what kind of dynamite range does this tune offer??i've tweaked quite a few(all brands) in my days and even some home brewed ones,there are a whole list of songs more appropriate for tweaking these babies.
shit..sounds like they all gathered around one mic, fired up a joint and sang.what kind of dynamite range does this tune offer??i've tweaked quite a few(all brands) in my days and even some home brewed ones,there are a whole list of songs more appropriate for tweaking these babies.
"Sweet Jane" was indeed recorded with a single Ambisonic stereo microphone in a church, with apparently no post processing before it was mastered to CD. There are actually quite a few mid- to late '80s songs like that, recorded with very high peak transients, because they were made before digital processing equipment became available.oldiesstation said:
kevin, let me tell you something.i've been in quite a few studios doing song mastering, louisiana leroux,New Orleans ladies, written by a good friend, grass roots, sooner or later hit, and countless sessions with jingle companies.i don't care if sweet jane was done thru a toilet paper tube with a radio shack mic.it AIN'T very well mastered.and sure as heck will never sound perfect on any processor.PERIOD..SOMEHOW you don't get what much more qualified engineers are telling you.i was tweaking boxes when you were on Gerber's baby food.Please take a vacation.....thank you
Compared to today's smashed-and-trashed pop music CDs, the 1988 Cowboy Junkies CD sounds fine to me, except maybe for the sibilance. Yeah, there's some background noise on the track (audible near the end), but otherwise it's nice to hear such a "non-pre-processed" recording for a change.oldiesstation said:
Kevin T. Wrote:
The other thing with that track is the fact that the vocals are sung through the church PA mic system. The vocals were picked up by the ambisonic microphone...along with the PA system 60 Hz hum & all the upper harmonics.
I agree, It isn't the world's best recording to tweak a processor on!
-C
The other thing with that track is the fact that the vocals are sung through the church PA mic system. The vocals were picked up by the ambisonic microphone...along with the PA system 60 Hz hum & all the upper harmonics.
I agree, It isn't the world's best recording to tweak a processor on!
-C
C
CalifZeke
Guest
Kevin Tekel said:
SO....Just because this was recorded in this manner, doesn't guarantee that it will sound good. You're wrapped up in specs and claims, as compared to what the outcome is, no matter the gear used.
- Status