F Mister, I have actually written a low latency prototype. Total Analog Input -> MPX Output throughput delay is 18ms. Audio quality is very nearly as good as full latency BBP, and distortion-wise it's still comfortably ahead of other processors. Still xylophone safe, telephone safe, saxophone safe. It's right at the edge though -- cutting latency down further noticeably reduces quality, and increasing latency further would mean you absolutely couldn't monitor off air. Due to the internal block size of the processing (which is already halved compared to BBP), pure i/o latency is 6ms, leaving 12ms for the actual processing, including multiband, clippers and everything else. It was an extremely tight squeeze to get the good distortion control into a pipeline that short. I guess I couldn't resist doing it, to prove once and for all that it's not the delay that counts, it's *what* you do with it, and that it was actually possible to take a major step forward in quality even while matching latency. Omnia 6 is 12ms as far as I remember, so even my low latency version is significantly slower -- but with 8500 at 17ms and 8400 at 19ms, BBP at 18ms can probably be deemed reasonable.
Indeed BBP as it exists now is very low cost. At $199, there is no definitely no margin for direct one-on-one support -- it's an off-the-shelf product. Of course, that doesn't preclude me from keeping up with questions in the Forum as best as I can
.
Please note that BBP, while currently being the flagship in the Breakaway lineup, is actually the *entry-level* broadcast version. The more advanced versions just aren't finished yet. They're prototyped, and they work, but they're not sellable products yet.
Price has likely been a major factor in the decision making process for many stations who have bought BBP, but certainly not all! Some stations have gone with Breakaway because it sounds the best, regardless of cost. Other big networks are testing and doing shootouts for the same reason. It's indeed an unorthodox strategy to deliver an entry level product with top notch algorithms and simplified controls -- usually entry level broadcast products have full control but simplified algorithms -- but who's to say every company has to develop products the same way?
Rob, I'm not sure I understand your comment. BBP isn't meant to be used standalone --
it's meant to be run on a computer. Once it's properly configured on a computer, then that
computer+software combo essentially becomes a standalone box, and can replace one. Or, what do you mean? Please clarify.
Regarding my confidence in myself and the product, the only real complaint I've heard about BBP is the latency. I have never heard a single complaint regarding the audio quality itself. It's not a coincidence -- I wrote it that way. I heard distortion I didn't like in other processors, and I worked for *years* to make a processor that didn't have the same problems. My own pair of ears tell me I succeeded (they have been an instrumental tool throughout development), and other pairs of ears seem to agree. As such, confidence grows!
Of course, I always strive to improve things. Constructive criticism is welcome!
For example:
Definining "Problem Cut" as a song that suddenly and inexplicably exhibits distortion, spectral balance shifts, pumping or ducking,
using settings that sound fine on the vast majority of other program material, specifically excluding settings which sound bad on everything (which is certainly possible with BBP like with other processors, just turn Bass and Final Drive up) --
If you find a Problem Cut with BBP, which sounds fine on another processor set up for a similar sound, by all means let me know! Record MPX from BBP and the other processor, tell me the settings you were using, and I'll take a look at it and try to solve it.
I haven't found a problem cut for a long time now (since I wrote the current clipper algorithm) so I absolutely welcome any input on this.
Cornelius, LOL! Good one, and yeah he would :-D.
Best,
///Leif
