Processing clips

[menotti1]

Kevin T, looks like Solidyne has seen a few Omnia's from the look of the model 462 & 562.I inquired about a console they offer MONTHS ago, NO answer yet.. it would make me REAL nervous trying to depend on them for processor support or service.

 

[Info-warrior]

The clip Notimeforsleep posted sounds quite nice. The top end is bright, but not too bright. The level is consistant, though I don't have trained ears, I didn't hear any obvious flaws: i.e. gross ducking, etc. One thing stuck out, but it may be more the fault of the weak signal than the processor, there was distortion on the female singer.

The Sonos processed clip of How Do I Live is also excellent. After listening and comparing it to the one I made, I decided that the stereo enhance function on the compellor is going to be left off. I wonder if the stereo enhancer is responsible for the texture change the Rob Orban hears in the Compellor as with it off, all I hear is a level change.

 

[fugazi]

@menotti,

I have no bad experiences with solidyne if it comes to service. ( faillure in display )

Regards,

Evret

 

[The F Mister]

I've uploaded a few clips of the Omnia One I played with this Saturday (thnx rene ). I was pretty impressed of the sound of the One. It really has the "omnia" sound if you ask me. The factory presets didn't impress me much really. So starting from there we used two presets, were the "cranked' preset is really over the top but this was just to see how far I could push the clippers in comparison to my DSPX witch I brang along. I must say that you can't push the clippers on the One as far as on a DSPX, although you don't miss much loudness at the end between these two. They both have a sound of it's own (but I really love the low end in the omnia). It's nice how you can adjust the processing settings using only a browser and a java applet but adjusting those knobs is a real pain in the ass, I rather have faders like the dspx remote control.

Overall I think it's a great sounding box for a really clever placed price. In the picture folder you can find the setup.

 

[menotti1]

thanks f mister for the clip.VERY impressive.for 2500.00 it's a steal...better than the o3T and creeping up on the 5EX. Just hard to beat that 06 box,but look at the price differential. good job on the preset..

 

[Info-warrior]

That Omnia 1 has some serious potential. In time, one of those may find it's way into my collection.

 

[kevtronics]

On the DSPX/Big Bottom clip of Kelly Clarkson, I hear the presence band dipping in and out in response to the sibilance... when Kelly sings an "S" sound, the upper midrange/lower treble (around 6-8 kHz) quickly drops out and then gradually comes back. It's not that obvious because the upper treble is pretty consistent, but it seems like the third of the DSPX's four bands is a bit overactive in order to achieve the large amount of treble boost that it is called to provide.

The same effect is audible in the LeAnn Rimes clip around 1:32 when she sings "there'd be no sun in my sky"... the S in "sun" causes the upper midrange to drop out momentarily... and in general, her voice is causing a kind of "wishy-washy" effect as the multiband processing responds to it.

p.s. The Tina Arena song is "Chains", not "Chairs"!

 

[kevtronics]

I also notice that in Broadcast's 8100/XT2 version of "Chains", there is much more stereo separation than in Mister F's Omnia.One version... in the beginning, Tina's voice is way off to the left side on the 8100, while on the Omnia it's more towards the middle.... Broadcast, were you using some kind of stereo expander with your 8100 setup?

 

[JDThuner001]

I also notice that in Broadcast's 8100/XT2 version of "Chains", there is much more stereo separation than in Mister F's Omnia.One version.

WHY do you always turn these forums into a let's bash Frank's Omnia processors? You lurk here and on Radio Tech and offer your personal opinions as fact when they clearly aren't. The major market stations use Omnia and Orban processors. Processing is subjective. We all get that you have a problem with Omnias. And we are tired of hearing it. So please, shut up!

 

[FFoti1]

Group,

This thread is getting out of hand. Might be time to step back a bit.

Trying to 'judge' processing based upon uploaded files is insane. The *ONLY* fair, tried-n-true method is to A/B the devices on-air. Nothing else matters. Yes, I've said this before.

BUT...here's a few elements this group has not taken into consideration, and I know it affects what you're hearing.

1. Preemphasis: I know that some of these clips are done in Europe and some here in the USA. You cannot compare 50µs clips to the same song done with 75µs emphasis. ALL processors handle these differently. The difference is more than just the difference in EQ.

2. The files themselves: We now know that some of these files have been post altered. Even the claim of normalizing doesn't make sense. You're trying to take audio that has already been packed up once, if not twice, and then 'tweaking' it again. Makes no sense. The audio does become affected.

3. You have no idea what is really going on in your audio capture gear. If there are filters, non-linear functions, SRC's, etc, there will be level, sonic, and texture changes. This is fact.

All of the above add up. Where the same file might sound good on my PC, it might suck-wind on another. All because of the above mentioned items. If you're truly being *honest* about how to perform a processor comparison, you will follow the tried-n-true method.

Regarding Omnia.One: It supports the stereo sound field exactly as provided at the inputs of the device. It does not alter the stereo image one way or the other.

-Frank Foti

 

[BROADCAST]

My recordings have been taken from my tuner,straight in to the a/d converter and in to my soundcard(spdif).
This does give a reasonable indication of on air sound quality(of course better if were to record other stations from the same tuner).
Of course 50us should sound brighter than 75us(on the same processor/setup and appropriate de-emp).
Frank i do see your point about variables in equipment,but good quality sound recorded from a tuner,converted to digital,does give some idea of audio quality.
If the transmitted audio is crap,then how can the flat recording from the tuner sound good or superb?

And talk about sound colouration,this is where heated disscussions have been had about composite clipping!

Also real enthusiasts copy the wav files to cdr before listening,this surely must be a reasonable way of listening to it?

My 8100a/xt2 has a 222a spatial enhancer before it,with the enhancement set to 3,i have said this some time ago.

I have heard numerous dspx recordings with Kevin's point about the dulling hf during and after sibilance,(like a broad hf limiter),this could be the way the processor is set up.

All interesting stuff!

 

[wgliradio]

The Omnia ONE has excellent seperation. There is no enhancement or any tricks going on to manipulate the sound field.

 

[FFoti1]

My recordings have been taken from my tuner,straight in to the a/d converter and in to my soundcard(spdif).
This does give a reasonable indication of on air sound quality(of course better if were to record other stations from the same tuner).
Of course 50us should sound brighter than 75us(on the same processor/setup and appropriate de-emp).
Frank i do see your point about variables in equipment,but good quality sound recorded from a tuner,converted to digital,does give some idea of audio quality.
If the transmitted audio is crap,then how can the flat recording from the tuner sound good or superb?

And talk about sound colouration,this is where heated disscussions have been had about composite clipping!

Also real enthusiasts copy the wav files to cdr before listening,this surely must be a reasonable way of listening to it?

My 8100a/xt2 has a 222a spatial enhancer before it,with the enhancement set to 3,i have said this some time ago.

I have heard numerous dspx recordings with Kevin's point about the dulling hf during and after sibilance,(like a broad hf limiter),this could be the way the processor is set up.

All interesting stuff!

Broadcast,

Your quote alone indicates that numerous variables exist, and no one can possibly know the extent of those, nor would they be able to gather a true and honest understanding of what your files are trying to convey. All the more reason why this notion of trying to judge processing by stored-files is misleading. With all due respect, I cannot accept "...some idea of audio quality."

File storage for archival purposes is great. I do it all the time. Not for making critical judgements in how a device sounds. Now, before any of you respond by saying this is done for fun, all you have to do is jog back through this thread and note the numerous critical comments made about ALL of the processors mentioned...not just ours. Those comments were made based upon some uploaded file, and without much, if any, knowledge of how it was done or setup. The group has put blind faith in what was presented, and then accepted the results.

I've heard ALL the processors mentioned, and know when comments made here have any legitimacy or not. MOST of them do not!!

For the record, the only judgements I make are based upon listening to a device LIVE. No tape, CD, file, second-hand opinion...nothing. My own ears, listening to the device, on a system I trust. It's that, or nothing...

-Frank Foti

 

[Robert Bass]

rank,

With all due respect...

I have personally captured tuner audio of the same station, from three different tuners, using two different PC's. In each setup, I went from the RCA outputs into the stereo mini jack on the sound cards. All of my recordings were captured directly as a .wav file, and I did not normalize a single one of them. I then played all the recordings through the same CD player / AKG headphones, and there is no noticeable difference.

I'm not going to debate the quality issues by themselves, but I will agree that unless you don't know exactly how these types of samples are made, you can get a very good idea of how the processors work.

R

 

[kevtronics]

I uploaded a Michael Bublé track as processed by Sonos I. Given the density of the processing (the same settings as used on all the other clips so far) and the 75 uS pre-emphasis curve, I was surprised at the high-end clarity and definition it delivered.

BTW, what you're hearing is the direct digital output of the processing. Since it was all done in software, no actual audio devices were involved... it was just a matter of manipulating the bits and bytes to achieve a desired result, when is then played through YOUR choice of output device, be it a half-inch piezo speaker in a laptop or a high-end audio system that cost more than a new car... or, as it was intended to be, a pro-quality audio card feeding an MPX stereo generator for actual on-air use.

 

[kevtronics]

WHY do you always turn these forums into a let's bash Frank's Omnia processors? You lurk here and on Radio Tech and offer your personal opinions as fact when they clearly aren't. The major market stations use Omnia and Orban processors. Processing is subjective. We all get that you have a problem with Omnias. And we are tired of hearing it. So please, shut up!

Ummm... for the record, I prefer the Omnia's sound over the DSPX by a considerable margin, at least by what I've heard of both so far. Perhaps the fact that the DSPX is only used for processing a Classical music station in New York City is an indication that it isn't quite up to snuff by "major-market" standards... thus also explaining why the BW folks basically dropped everything to rush the DSPXtreme to market!

However in this case, there was noticeably less stereo separation on the Omnia.One than on the 8100/XT2 setup -- as it turns out, the reason being that the 8100 had a 222A stereo enhancer in front of it. I have no question that an Omnia fed with a similar stereo enhancer would provide equally wide separation.

 

[The F Mister]

WHY do you always turn these forums into a let's bash Frank's Omnia processors? You lurk here and on Radio Tech and offer your personal opinions as fact when they clearly aren't. The major market stations use Omnia and Orban processors. Processing is subjective. We all get that you have a problem with Omnias. And we are tired of hearing it. So please, shut up!

Ummm... for the record, I prefer the Omnia's sound over the DSPX by a considerable margin, at least by what I've heard of both so far. Perhaps the fact that the DSPX is only used for processing a Classical music station in New York City is an indication that it isn't quite up to snuff by "major-market" standards... thus also explaining why the BW folks basically dropped everything to rush the DSPXtreme to market!

Just to know, what is the average price of the processor used in the NYC market? Since you know exactly what each station is using.

 

[dspxscott]

Ummm... for the record, I prefer the Omnia's sound over the DSPX by a considerable margin, at least by what I've heard of both so far. Perhaps the fact that the DSPX is only used for processing a Classical music station in New York City is an indication that it isn't quite up to snuff by "major-market" standards... thus also explaining why the BW folks basically dropped everything to rush the DSPXtreme to market!

Hi Kevin
Can you explain your reasoning behind your last sentence. hmmmm.

 

[kevtronics]

Hi Kevin
Can you explain your reasoning behind your last sentence. hmmmm.

Your own posting to this board explaining that the AM versions of the DSPX / DSPXmini were put on hold to develop the DSPXtreme-FM....

 

[Phaser]

Hello Group, I am reading yours posts here “Processing clips” from the very first time, I am serious hobbyist with radio processing sound as many users here.
My greetings to Mr. Goran for the giving space to place in audio samples by anyone.

Gentlemen I think you are missed your touch with reality, I must agree with Mr. Foti (even If I don’t prefer the sound of his box “this thread is getting out of hand”
“Trying to 'judge' processing based upon uploaded files is insane. The *ONLY* fair, tried-n-true method is to A/B the devices on-air. Nothing else matters”.

User “Broadcast” (I don’t have anything with u Broadcast just I take u as example) says that “My recordings have been taken from my tuner, straight in to the a/d converter and in to my soundcard(spdif)”

1) how sure you are Broadcast for the sonic quality of your tuner? analogue out stages? Mostly uses cheap IC i.e. JRC4558 or other types plus lots dry capacitors on audio path,
2) how sure you are for the sonic capabilities of Fm Discriminator on yours tuner? (except if you are using the wide and linear phase detector of an well known modulation meter as i.e. Inovonics or Belar) domestic Japanese tuners use cheap Murata ceramic 10.7 filters for discrimination, that method of discrimination is NOT appropriate to take an reference audio which can judge the resulted sound of an fm processor, gentlemen for god sake there out there some exotic fm tuners - most of them from the past - for that job,
3) how sure you are for the accuracy of de-emphasis or the flatness of following 15khz low-pass filters? I have see lot of fm tuners by different brands with large deviation on frequency flatness so analogous from brand to brand will be and the resulted sound.

Did anybody know to tell me please FOR EACH up-loaded Audio Sample WHAT is the type of used Fm exciter? (modern dual speed or older). Did anybody know to tell me IF the used Fm Tuner to record the audio Sample has recently pass any check of freq. flatness? Did anybody know to tell me please how many out-board units are ahead of the “examinee” processing box? or IF the “examinee” processor is direct connected to Fm exciter on mountain or MPX is trough a STL?.

Gentlemen we cant take for granted (except only for fun) that audio samples to judge any processing box because we don’t know any “truth” details about the “descendance” (I am sure that even the person which up-load it dint knows, because nobody bother to check his sound side chain, except very few) of each audio samples, there are so much “unproved sleazy factors” on one audio side chain (analogue or digital) which can leading as on misjudged conclusions so we must be more “mature” here, except if here is a “playground for children”.

Thanks a lot to listen me.
Best regards.
Phaser