-
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
Stereomaxx question
- Thread starter whit979
- Start date
whit979 said:
My personal feeling about the StereoMaxx is that it's artificial-sounding at best, and destructive to the signal at worst.
It can only _add_ complexity to the stereo subcarrier, rather than manage the energy in it. If the levels (especially mono) sent to it are even slightly off balance, it will exaggerate them. But it exaggerates with its 'manufactured' (digital delay) effect , unlike the exaggeration that happens when matrix processing is set up wrong.
The Stereomaxx's reputation is one reason I offered a variation of matrix processing (optional) in the Ariane. I figured there had to be a more elegant and organic-sounding method of achieving a more consistent stereo stage. When you _manage_ the spectral energy in the stereo subcarrier (rather than simply adding to it), you can do a lot more than by just enhancing it. On the contrary, you can actually _reduce_ the effects of multi-path interference, while giving up little if anything in the perceived breadth of stereo stage.
There are, or course, some people who really like the sound of the Stereomaxx. To some degree, it's a taste thing (it's an option in the latest Optimods).
If you really want to use it, my suggestion would be to use a light hand. Try it with lots of material, good-quality and poor. Take stock of any areas that have multi-path interference before and after putting it online, to make sure that you don't make things worse.
Let us know how it works out!
Kind Regards,
David Reaves
TransLanTech Sound, LLC
Home of the Award-winning "Ariane Sequel" Digital Audio Leveler
My experience...it's better left out of the chain...IMHO...Thanks JBI
I do have to say I have heard the Ariane on a local 50KW FM near me and it's an outstanding box - if you need matrix processing I would opt for that instead. I've been to at least three stations that have pulled Stereomaxx off their on-air audio chains
The stereomaxx works by cancelling common-mode ( in both channels ) audio.
It can be a fine but subtle improvement.
It can be useful to remove crosstalk from previous dubbing.
It can "open up" a dead soundstage.
Use a light hand with all common-mode cancelling processors.
It may be more useful in production and dubbing work than broadcast, as source material varies considerably.
It can be a fine but subtle improvement.
It can be useful to remove crosstalk from previous dubbing.
It can "open up" a dead soundstage.
Use a light hand with all common-mode cancelling processors.
It may be more useful in production and dubbing work than broadcast, as source material varies considerably.
IMHO the Stereomaxx, if overdone, makes your signal sound like a concert in a concrete coliseum. Agree with above, use gently if at all.
O
OnTheAir123
Guest
If you have the slightest amount of multi-path in your signal, it REALLY shows up with a StereoMaxx in line. When the two signals cancel at the receiver and the stereo goes away or to "mono mix", you really notice it. If you do use it, use it lightly.
8)
8)
So far, "Bypass" has been the best setting I've seen.
If all audio is pristine and faultless, bypass.
If headphone auditioning shows you can use it to "restore" without adding any "extra" it is worth using while encoding.
Used this way even the mono FM result will have better definition, as a natural result of any "cleaner" audio.
It can't ever make anything better than it really was in the first generation.
Same headphone test will easily show that "perfect" recordings can only be harmed by application of common-mode cancelling.
It can only be used on air if you can afford to have a golden-eared full time eq live board op.
It needs to different for every recording's unique stereo imaging, and better audio of couse, needs no help.
I only use this mode in dubbing and audio production.
The HUGE soundstage setting can be useful for special emphasis in promos, etc, but will fatigue listeners and
accentuate the presence of any multipath in reception.
If headphone auditioning shows you can use it to "restore" without adding any "extra" it is worth using while encoding.
Used this way even the mono FM result will have better definition, as a natural result of any "cleaner" audio.
It can't ever make anything better than it really was in the first generation.
Same headphone test will easily show that "perfect" recordings can only be harmed by application of common-mode cancelling.
It can only be used on air if you can afford to have a golden-eared full time eq live board op.
It needs to different for every recording's unique stereo imaging, and better audio of couse, needs no help.
I only use this mode in dubbing and audio production.
The HUGE soundstage setting can be useful for special emphasis in promos, etc, but will fatigue listeners and
accentuate the presence of any multipath in reception.
Tom Wells said:
Tom:
According to the Stereomaxx manual, the device does not affect common mode (mono) material at all, but rather, adds a user-defined amount of delayed L-R back into the mix. They claim the L+R is passed with no change whatsoever and their schematic backs this up.
I'm not sure how one might use this to reduce the crosstalk from previous dubbing... And I would not say that "it can open up a dead soundstage," but rather that it creates one where it did not exist before. In other words, it's simply a form of program-controlled artificial reverb on the L-R signal.
As for using it, you have control over the length of the delay ("Depth") and the amount added ("Width"). The delay time will adjust the sense of size of space, and 'depth' is a good name for that. The amount of injection will indeed increase the apparent 'width' of the stereo stage.
Varying the 'Depth' control will have a relatively small amount of effect on the level of multipath interference created; this can be adjusted to taste... overuse of the'Width' control, however, is where you can get into serious trouble!
Again, I stress that by creating and adding a new, artificial signal by delaying and re-injecting the L-R, you are cluttering up the subcarrier region unnecessarily. If there were no multipath issues with FM, I might say go ahead and use it if you must, but since that is rarely the case...
BTW, the manual says the Stereomaxx uses Jensen transformers. Cool. If you throw it away, be sure to save the transformers.
David P. Reaves, III
TransLanTech Sound, LLC
Home of the Award-Winning "Ariane" Audio Levelers.
The best setting I've found, is setting it on the floor to hold a door open
Back in the day, I inherited one, and played with it. Back in the days of material on tape, anything that
was plagued with head alignment errors (agency spots, typically) had announcers sounding like they were talking inside a bathroom, or toilet bowl.
This is because of the L-R delay. Took it out, and made it a door stop. Best use I've ever had for it
-C. Gould
Back in the day, I inherited one, and played with it. Back in the days of material on tape, anything that
was plagued with head alignment errors (agency spots, typically) had announcers sounding like they were talking inside a bathroom, or toilet bowl.
This is because of the L-R delay. Took it out, and made it a door stop. Best use I've ever had for it
-C. Gould
- Status