Processing clips

[The F Mister]

I've uploaded two clips, Another Josie and Kelly Clarkson.

What's different? I now have included a Warsanis 1240 three band processor in my chain. I have this thing laying around and it badly needs maintenance because as far as I know never had any and is more than 20 years old! But I really like it's distinctive sound. It hardly limits more than 3 to 5db, it's there for the flavor and protects the Aphex 204 which follows it. Next item I would like to add to the chain is a Aphex 320A. I rather have a Ariane but try to find one second hand. No chance. I also wanted a Orban 222a but as stereo enhancement might come to the dspx I'll wait.

 

[Info-warrior]

The new Omnia one clips of "Sweet Jane" using the classical and the AC presets give a sense of how smooth this processor can sound. There is some HF ducking, but it's not drastic and If I didn't know, I might just have assumed it was a defect in the original recording.

The CRL SMP being driven by Sonos has a very nice even sound (just the way I knew it could sound).

 

[stace]

With regards to getting that old 8100 XT2 sound...

I've never tried this but would be interested to hear what a 2200 or 2300 would sound like with a pair of Gentner Prizms in front?? Not that there would be any point to it, just a curiosity.

I've used a 2200, and thought its consistancy and VERY slow AGC made it a little weak on its own, but it was trying to run in a market against an 8200 and 8100. Maybe some prizms would brighten it up a bit???

 

[Sgeirk]

1) What's the ftp site and password again?
2) Slow the attack and release on the 2200 and you may certainly try a set of Texars out in front, as long as they're not horribly misaligned, they could brighten and open things up a bit.

Good luck. Always good to have a spare set of Texar's sitting around...they're great for equalizing phone audio, creating sim-air feeds, streaming, etc.

 

[stace]

http://fserver.redirectme.net

User: Processing
Password: clips

Problem there is the 2200 doesn't allow for a slower attack time. What I would imagine would be a good combo would be the arianne in front with the AGC disabled in the Optimod...just to give a little more consistancy to they highs

 

[radiotoday]

Hi. my friend, but mostly "soundteacher in radio" fonorban helped me to discover this site which i didnt know. Also i am very happy to see here all the persons which showed to the radio world from the late 60s and early 70s untill know, how it is possible to play louder in radio. (like God of sound Bob Orban etc)
I saw all those suggestions and opinions regarding to how we can modify a preset from any processor just to sound greater and louder. To be honest from all those things here i will be educated and also i will learn some things more. However, i would like to share some of my thoughts as i work in radio more then 2 decades, but technicaly speaking i feel like a fish student here. From time to time i had lots of processors with me, from my favorite 8100 to aphex compelor,dominator and exciter set, to BW 4 band, Inovonics 250, to optimod 8200 which i think is oneof the most familiar solutions to what a listeners accepts with his ears -EVEN IF HE NEVER KNOWS WHY ! All those modifications are corect and respect to those who did them for any processor.

But in reality what we hear at the end through our...TUNER ON AIR, this isnt what the listener is hearing with us. And this is something which - at the most occasions - isnt what we here from the mpx out from any processor. So whats happening is that we are speaking in a way, about what we could do in a ...laboratory, but when the sound goes per example trough a radio link and a fm exciter which isnt dual speed, or , something very ordinary, we use a cheap, second class trasmitter ( since the budget is always ..less then it should), then, we are hearing definately something else then we should.
What i say is this. WE TRY TO SEE THE TREE, BUT WE CANT SEE THE FOREST.

Is it maybe better instead of trying to make totall louder the radio station, just to educate the listeners to hear better. Because at the end when a listener likes the programm from a station he turns the volume knob on, but, when hes listening a excellent sound from a station with a programm that isnt familiar to his ears, he uses direct the button to change the station, and listen somenthing else, which is his style.

i grow up listening radio from the end of 70s and beginning of the 80s. Excellent years. At that time not all the stations had a multiband 8100 or maybe more a monoband 8000 optimod. Still, the sound was the second option for the listeners, and the first was the product. the programm. nobody was really interested to push the sound so much up. the 75khz would sound like ... a 100! khz modulation. To be honest at the most occasions the 75 khz modulation sounded around 50 khz due to the fact that bob orbans optimod wasnt well known to all the sound technicians unfortunealy.

regards, radiotoday.

 

[cgould]

But in reality what we hear at the end through our...TUNER ON AIR, this isnt what the listener is hearing with us. And this is something which - at the most occasions - isnt what we here from the mpx out from any processor. So whats happening is that we are speaking in a way, about what we could do in a ...laboratory, but when the sound goes per example trough a radio link and a fm exciter which isnt dual speed, or , something very ordinary, we use a cheap, second class trasmitter ( since the budget is always ..less then it should), then, we are hearing definately something else then we should.
What i say is this. WE TRY TO SEE THE TREE, BUT WE CANT SEE THE FOREST.

Wow..I like you and Fonorban!

;D

You speak the absolute truth here! Several of my colleagues (who lurk and read, but don't post here) and I were talking about this very topic. Things like STL's, Exciters, THE TRANSMITTER, THE ANTENNA do play a HUGE role in how the sound of the station comes across...and the processor is NOT the end-all be-all in this process.

There's been lots of discussions about what NYC radio station sounded the best back in the day...I kind of giggle to myself knowing that these stations were, for the most part, on the old Alford antenna during the era of the analog boxes, and operating through that complicated combiner, which played games with everyone's sound...some worse than others depending on their particular situation (bandwidth-wise).

This isn't a knock on the Alford system...all combiners do SOMETHING to the audio...just depends on how critical the filters have to be. When the majority of a market's radio stations are all combined like that, all kinds of goofy stuff comes into play.

The bandwidth of the main RF amplifier on the transmitter (and how well it is -or can be- tuned) also plays a role.

How can RF amplifiers and antennas do this to AUDIO?

Because most of audio is in the form of sidebands -- which extend a ways to either side of the main carrier. If the side bands are truncated by "close filters" (tight bandwidth constraints), then the audio quality suffers -- mostly in the form of lost detail (kind of like "vasoline smear" on the high frequencies). Even worse if the filtering is asymmetrical.

Composite and discrete channel analog STL radio links can also degrade audio quality (some by a surprising amount). Especially ones that have been in continuous service with little attention payed to them over the years! Most do have issues passing low frequency square waves...which is not too uncommon to have on the output of audio processors these days!

The typical real world conditions that even the biggest broadcast stations operate in, and the amount of audio quality that is compromised by means out of the engineer's control can be surprising! Some processors tend to perform much better than others when placed in certain situations.

I'm not going to BEGIN to talk about the issues that various FM tuners have that really muck up the integrity of processed audio heard over the air!

PLL's, IF bandwidth, De-Emphasis, 19 kHz pilot filters that start rolling off severely after 10 kHz.

OY! :-X

This is why several of us feel that it is really silly to try to truly judge a recording made in a closed loop test with what you hear over the air. Folks like Goran, Kevin and all seem to realize this, but many others might not. So, I'm speaking to the "others".



-C

 

[radiotoday]

Thx cgould. i totally agree with you.

regarding to ---- How can RF amplifiers and antennas do this to AUDIO?
Because most of audio is in the form of sidebands -- which extend a ways to either side of the main carrier. If the side bands are truncated by "close filters" (tight bandwidth constraints), then the audio quality suffers -- mostly in the form of lost detail (kind of like "vasoline smear" on the high frequencies). Even worse if the filtering is asymmetrical. ---

Some people don’t understand how easy it is to see which way a fm antenna per example, can change the way a fm exciter sounds .(and the fm processors preset with it of course) See what happens when the fm antenna suddenly... changes. A childish simple test is this. You use a simple dipole antenna directly at the transmitter with each pole been only 2 mm wide, and after that use a dipole antenna which is broadband and each pole has a 5cm wideness. At the same frequency, with the same user preset etc, the sound will be different. Not very much maybe, but it will be diferrent. Rf is causing problems to fm audio. In fact everybody knows that, but sometimes we seems to forget it.

In a laboratory everything should be 100% near to reality, but the truth is, what we hear is 100% near to HOW IT SHOULD SOUND, AND NOT HOW IT DOES in a true environment from a radio station. Also some things i noticed, which always causing problems to the sound of the station
1. I use 7 years RCS MASTER CONTROL. every time, (12 in 7 years) when we changed the soundcard due to upgrade ... both stations had a different sound, and we needed to match the user preset from the OPTIMOD 8400 AND OPTIMOD 8500 again. NOT A PROCESSORS FAULT of course.
2. The broadcast console. We used a typical digital soundcraft broadcast console. Terrible sound. We used also other consoles and they all, sounded different. So what did we do? We preferred the “cheap” soundcraft solution…cause of the budget. Even when we used different cables the sound is reacting in a different way. ( and theoretically speaking in a digital environment it should not.)
3. The Stl radio link, the exciter, and of course... the source. Here is where i laugh most. As everybody knows always at a small market, lots of times at a medium market, and even the big market radio stations are using different sources. From cds to Wave sound, from mp2 to mp3 ( by the way they are lots of stations who are still using the terrible 128 k , 192k etc bitrate) everything sounds with a different way.
A radio station isn’t a laboratory, so even if, as Frank Foti did, we match perfet a user preset to specific song and it sounds perfect, the problem stays.
WE CANT HAVE SOLUTIONS MATCHING TO THE “GENERAL” FM REALITY WHEN THE TROUTH IS THAT EACH STATION HAS HIS OWN UNIQUE ENVIREMENT.
As a result nothing sounds the same. Radio stations are like kids. We always thing that kids having the same childish behavior but the truth is, every kid is total different then the other in reality.

radiotoday

 

[Fonorban]

Hello Radiotoday, I am glad to see you here CGould I like you too, of course I am totally agree with you at last you and some other very few colleague bring an professional “touch” on this forum, you and radiotoday “bold” some “buried” really why? influences from Exciters to Antennas to receivers which affect seriously the resulted sound which never take it on account as criticize an processor sound results except if all that “fuss” on “clips forum” its just for “fun” if so then I stop any writing right now.

By the way on www.Orban.com there is an old white paper "Maintaining Audio Quality in the Broadcast Facility" which says it all about also on old 8100 service manual (excellent book) there is some info, really does read it by any colleague here? Also on website of Gregg here http://www.indexcom.com/paper.html As well on http://www.radio-guide.com the excellent articles “Processing Guide” by Jim Somich which was suddenly passed away, also on radio-guide.com Fine articles by Cornelius Gould which can find it collected on his website here http://www.cgould.com – I assume that “cgould” is Mr. Cornelius Gould? If so my respects & compliments by the way your experiment project APS-1020 with 4band made it with LM1700 VCA?

To all colleague here, its more creative to read some of above articles to learn history and other usefully things than of spend you precious time and strengths just to “play” and urge all the time for something so “subjective” as is the resulted processing sound be more creative.

I close with a reminder from radiotoday

“What I say is this. WE TRY TO SEE THE TREE, BUT WE CANT SEE THE FOREST.
Is it maybe better instead of trying to make total louder the radio station, just to educate the listeners to hear better”

Regards
XFon

 

[gtomas]

If so my respects & compliments by the way your experiment project APS-1020 with 4band made it with LM1700 VCA?

IIRC, Cornelius used THAT VCA's for his "Audio Chameleon" analog processor (as probably most of the people still doing compressor/limiters in analog these days). These ICs are relatively cheap, easy to use, with very good specs and there's an accompanying RMS detector if you wish to use it (www.thatcorp.com). You can find a nice set of application notes for basic analog compressor designs on their website as well.

Cornelius however recently switched to digital and you can listen to his latest DSP processor on his Net radio www.legatocafe.net

Regarding the comments made about all the factors that influence the sound of a station, I fully agree. From source audio (especially source audio!), performance of analog equipment preceding the processor, exciter, etc. all the way down to receiver (a very important link as well). That is one of the reasons I record my clips directly from the processor - to avoid these variables altogether. Although an argument of recording a station off-air as being the only one relevant for the sound of a particular station, is just as relevant. These clips of various stations or only processors are not meant to be directly compared for overall performance, as they are recorded in different environments and in different ways, with different setting, etc. We've said that probably a 100 times so far, but I'll guess it'll take another 100 ;-)

Some aspects of processing can be compared however - mostly the dynamic action of a processor itself, though again with reserve as different settings will obviously greatly influence results, different input levels, etc. The thing is the equipment before the processor (playout source, console, distribution amps, etc) and after the processor (exciter, receiver, etc) will contribute to the quality and texture of the sound. But how the processor will react dynamically to the transient, change of level and stuff like that is in the domain of the processor and other equipment will not significantly influence that. OK, transients are tricky I agree, but if there's ducking in the sound it's not coming from the exciter or the receiver...

There is a valid point in taking the big picture into account (the forest) but it's also valid to focus on the link in the chain (the tree) for certain purposes.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[cgould]

If so my respects & compliments by the way your experiment project APS-1020 with 4band made it with LM1700 VCA?

Hi there!

Yes, I'm the same Cornelius! The LM13600 OTA's that happen to be visible in those shots are actually used to set the multiband VCA output mix. As Goran states, the heavy lifting (audio processing) is done with That Corp VCA's...which sort of evolved from DBX line of VCA's.

Cornelius however recently switched to digital and you can listen to his latest DSP processor on his Net radio www.legatocafe.net

Thanks for the plug! There isn't much to hear there these days as my wife and I managed to get work as music directors in the same music format for two different non-commercial broadcasters in this area...this was a result of the work done with Legato Cafe. Great break for her, an entirely different direction for me!

Yes, I'm now working in the DSP realm, and making great progress on the next generation of my processing designs. The things rolling out from my DSP work really makes the old analog box look extremely primitive!

In fact, i blew the dust off of the old analog box, fired it up, and raced it against the DSP design this weekend. The DSP sounds closest to what I've been trying to do all these years! In fact, many of the qualities of the DSP box I thought mirrored the analog one closely until that test. No comparison! The DSP design definitely has the advantage!

This was a wierd twist to the thread for me! Never thought my work would end up as part of the thread!

Regards to all!
-Cornelius

 

[gtomas]

This was a wierd twist to the thread for me! Never thought my work would end up as part of the thread!

You got the "processing guru" status a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned... Better get used to the fame now!


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[Fonorban]

Hi Goran, Its well known the excellent “THAT VCA’s” I already play with that before some years I am ask Mr. Cornelius for inferior LM1700 because on his website have a photo of his processor PCB project, front of “THAT” RMS IC detectors is 4 LM IC which looks like an LM1700, that’s all (after his post looks to have right).

I don’t have any doubt that you already know all that influences which affect the resulted sound, but what is the use of such long discussions for how act that or this processor with one particular song? According the reply’s I don’t see any “mature” professional here except few exceptions, so what if you find the “Achilles’ heel” of an processor?

As I late reading the last post of ‘cgould’ greetings to Mr. Cornelius, have success on your DSP project

Goran passion is good only if is under CONTROL else bring “sick doggedness” “monomania” & “obsessions”

Regards & be professionals with the heart of an amateur
XFon

XFon

 

[gtomas]

I don’t have any doubt that you already know all that influences which affect the resulted sound, but what is the use of such long discussions for how act that or this processor with one particular song? According the reply’s I don’t see any “mature” professional here except few exceptions, so what if you find the “Achilles’ heel” of an processor?

To be completely frank (and I don't mean to be rude) I don't have the time or will to elaborate this further. It's not one song and I think I explained this, if you read the whole thread. There were other comments as well, I think everybody draw some conclusions for themselves and as far as I am concerned, this dead horse is buried...


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[cgould]

Hi Goran, Its well known the excellent “THAT VCA’s” I already play with that before some years I am ask Mr. Cornelius for inferior LM1700 because on his website have a photo of his processor PCB project, front of “THAT” RMS IC detectors is 4 LM IC which looks like an LM1700, that’s all (after his post looks to have right).

Speaking of the RMS engines...I didn't use them in that processor as the design called for a single time constant implementation. I just created my own RMS detectors designed around my multiple time constant networks (that stuff is on different perf boards not visible in that photo).

You got the "processing guru" status a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned... Better get used to the fame now!

Oh my!

Thanks, Goran!

-C

 

[PaulyBoy]

I don’t have any doubt that you already know all that influences which affect the resulted sound, but what is the use of such long discussions for how act that or this processor with one particular song? According the reply’s I don’t see any “mature” professional here except few exceptions, so what if you find the “Achilles’ heel” of an processor?

Very well said. There are wannabe processing kids on this forum who have nothing better to do than find any item THEY think is a concern, and then carry on as if they know it all. I know if goran or kevin had to setup processing at a major radio station, they would fail. They have no idea what is required to process competitively. Playing around with a processor is much different than using it for actual broadcasting.

 

[cgould]

To be completely frank (and I don't mean to be rude) I don't have the time or will to elaborate this further. It's not one song and I think I explained this, if you read the whole thread. There were other comments as well, I think everybody draw some conclusions for themselves and as far as I am concerned, this dead horse is buried...

Regards,
Goran Tomas

I think what we're getting at is that those of us who fidddle with processing on a deep level understand all these issues and caveats. No question about that...but audio processing maniacs are few and far between, and the posting of audio clips that are open to anyone to listen to needs these caveats posted BIG TIME.

I know you have said over and over that folks should get the audio processors of interest in their own hands and test them in your broadcast facility, and evaluate them there, and not use the recordings as a substitute.

This makes perfect sense to those of us who make a living in one way or another as "the processing guy" for radio stations, but for folks who are not such a person, but need to evaluate a potential processor purchase nonetheless, the clips can be quite deceiving. When those of us lurking start seeing posts from people that appear to make absolute statements about brand X vs. Brand Y based on what is heard on these clips, we start throwing penalty flags from the sidelines!

Yes, the ducking issue is something that will be heard on any station regardless of the environment, but it is an incomplete adjustment session which was halted mid-way. And the result can be heard on that "Sweet Jane" clip.

If there was no way to get the ducking to not happen, I wouldn't chime in...or worse yet, If I were someone equally stumped, I may chime in and say "Yep! Can't stand that processor..."

Notice how I (purposely) made an example of how criticizing the Orban processor for an undesirable processing "side effect" from using the typical presets on the 8500... Orban chimed in, and said that further adjustment was necessary to minimize the effect.

It isn't an attack on you, Goran...just some of us putting the breaks on some folks who are taking these clips in a direction they were not intended to be in. Being the creator of the thread, I'm sure there's a part of you taking this personally, and feel we are all talking directly to YOU...well we do talk to you when you take it personally... but I think everyone's comments are directed at others who start making sweeping statements about ANY processor based on these clips.

Now, if the thread was which processing makes posted clips sound the best...then we'd be way more on target here!



-C

 

[radiotoday]

O my God.

I think i opened Pandora’s Box with my thoughts about how “unreal” it is to spend so much time doing THE BEST ‘’SOUND MATCHING’’ with a SPECIFIC SAMPLE SONG.(and of course with all the possible "refines'' ).
At the beginning of the 80’s, at my younger years, when i was a uneducated naive but romantic fm pirate, fully in love with playing around the Fm frequencies, i tried for months doing something which would Bob Orban and Frank Foti really laugh right know. I tried to fix the sound from a specific song using a 2 x 31 bands Equalizer. And yes, it worked. After hours and hours listening and refining the song on air through my small Fm tube transmitter, i finally had the special sound i really liked. Or i thought so. Even if it was with around 65 khz of modulation. ( at that time, i really didn’t had any idea what a FM processor is and what he does. ) However, when i really thought, i found the excellent sound i liked most, the problem came when i played …. a DIFERENT SONG with my silly amateur “fm user preset”. The sound was terrible, and some frequencies sounded… you realy don’t wanna listen folks...

Those days remind me our discussion here. More to that, what i wanted to say without causing a “ fm sound war ” is something which maybe those wise words will explain easier.

‘’ I was young and naive in those days ( ca 1974 ) and actually thought that OPTIMOD fm 8000A would bring “unprocessed” sound back to the FM band. This was true for approximately 6 months, until the first engineers started Putting Dorrough DAPs ahead of the OPTIMOD 8000s to get more loudness. It was a learning experience.
I LEARNED THAT IF YOU GIVE FOLKS HEAVY ARTILERY SOME OF THEM WILL USE IT TO THE MAXIMUM POSIBLE EXTEND ‘’ - Bob Orban.

Regards, radiotoday

 

[PaulyBoy]

This makes perfect sense to those of us who make a living in one way or another as "the processing guy" for radio stations, but for folks who are not such a person, but need to evaluate a potential processor purchase nonetheless, the clips can be quite deceiving. When those of us lurking start seeing posts from people that appear to make absolute statements about brand X vs. Brand Y based on what is heard on these clips, we start throwing penalty flags from the sidelines!

If there was no way to get the ducking to not happen, I wouldn't chime in...or worse yet, If I were someone equally stumped, I may chime in and say "Yep! Can't stand that processor..."t.

It isn't an attack on you, Goran...just some of us putting the breaks on some folks who are taking these clips in a direction they were not intended to be in. Being the creator of the thread, I'm sure there's a part of you taking this personally, and feel we are all talking directly to YOU...well we do talk to you when you take it personally... but I think everyone's comments are directed at others who start making sweeping statements about ANY processor based on these clips.

Legacy radio engineers are laughing at this thread. They know you judge a processor's performance over a broad range of material. Not by playing some one-off track using some amateur setup.

Goran claims that he started this thread for fun and not for product comparison. He's been the one who has offered the most processor A vs B claims. After reading back many of the posts, he has been wrong in most of his claims.

Time for the moderators to dump this thread.

 

[cgould]

At the beginning of the 80’s, at my younger years, when i was a uneducated naive but romantic fm pirate, fully in love with playing around the Fm frequencies, i tried for months doing something which would Bob Orban and Frank Foti really laugh right know. I tried to fix the sound from a specific song using a 2 x 31 bands Equalizer. And yes, it worked.

<edit>

Or i thought so. Even if it was with around 65 khz of modulation. ( at that time, i really didn’t had any idea what a FM processor is and what he does. ) However, when i really thought, i found the excellent sound i liked most, the problem came when i played …. a DIFERENT SONG with my silly amateur “fm user preset”. The sound was terrible, and some frequencies sounded… you realy don’t wanna listen folks...

This follows my teenage processing escapades as an FM pirate back around 1985....for me, just follow the progression described by Radiotoday through to building a wideband compressor...then finding that it worked best to have the equalizer BEFORE the wideband compressor....then working HF limiting into the sidechain (for pre-emphasis management)....then splitting into three bands of compression..then..clippers...then...

FM stereo was the thing that almost broke me, though! So many issues to solve...so much I still had to learn...

The rest is history, I guess!

;D