• 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

TC Electronics C400XL (or C300)

C

ChiefOperator

All-
I've been researching compressors/AGC to be used in front of a STL. I came across the TC Electronics C400XL. It's a digital multiband compressor with nice specs. I'm wondering whether anyone is using it for this purpose (or another use). It looks nice. On another post, someone mentioned that they're using the C300, its "little brother." Any reviews would be appreciated. Thanks!

C400XL:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/C400XL.asp

C300:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/c300.asp
 
ChiefOperator said:
All-
I've been researching compressors/AGC to be used in front of a STL. I came across the TC Electronics C400XL. It's a digital multiband compressor with nice specs. I'm wondering whether anyone is using it for this purpose (or another use). It looks nice. On another post, someone mentioned that they're using the C300, its "little brother." Any reviews would be appreciated. Thanks!

C400XL:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/C400XL.asp

C300:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/c300.asp
Click to expand...

I can think of a lot worse boxes to use in this application, and either of the TCs is dirt cheap to buy and try out.

As for the C300, I am using one to master podcasts, including music. Composite mode: stereo/serial, gate/expander followed by the comp/limiter. I think it would be adequate for production, streaming and many mic processing applications, as well.

It's very transparent, pumping and compression artifacts are generally low, density is adequate and peak control is good. Either of the boxes is limited to preset algorithms (which are well thought out), and adjustments for threshold, compression ratio and makeup gain (recovery time and expansion amount in gate mode).

Inexpensive, DSP based processors are getting very good. I can't think I would ever go back to using any sort of broadband, analog compression after using the C300.
 
Thanks Ironbear-

I've seen a few talk stations now using a dbx 166xl in front of their STL. I'm thinking the C400 (or even C300) would be superior to the dbx.
 
None of the dynamics processors that were designed for recording/mastering will work as good as a processor designed for broadcast.

Those units were designed to be optimized for a specific track or piece of recording or perhaps a whole song. You are supposed to tweak the settings for each piece of audio. They were designed to provide moderate levels of compression/limiting, not ride gain, compress and limit over 20 or 30 dB of range. They were not designed to process extremely varied program material with levels, dynamics and spectral balance all over the place and do that with fixed adjustments. Their dynamics sections are just not "intelligent" enough to do this - they typically use faster, simple time constants, no freeze gating at all, etc.

Don't throw your money... You will not get what you're looking for.


Regards,
Goran Tomas
 
If i may suggest:

1.Aphex compellor,all over Ebay at decent prices.
2. My favorite,the Ariane Sequel.(Not cheap.about 2600.00,but well worth it.It works MAGIC.
 
Goran, I disagree with you. For the past few months, I have been using six C-300s in front of six radio network satellite uplinks. Before I bought them I tried many value compressors (DBX, etc.) and these were by far the best sounding units I could find under $300.00. I also emailed wth their designer and you are wrong about their circuitry-it is quite complex-all DSP and uses multiple release time algorithims, 96 kHz 24 bit processing, etc. Their peak limiter is look ahead. I use them as multiband AGCs (triband) and protective look ahead peak limiters. For this purpose they work quite well. They are a genuine bargain at 130 dollars apiece (Guitar Center). I do not push them that hard-they tend to sound crunched at over about 10 db of multiband gain reduction. I also use the coax digital output to interface with the uplink equipment, using an RCA to BNC adapter from Radio Shack.

For pre-processing in front of an STL (ie: a 'jock watcher') they should work very well-provided they are not pushed too hard.
 
LA_Guy-

Thanks. Have you used the C400 as well? It seems to be identical to the C300 except for the XLR connectors. Also, what setting are you using for your application, "composite?"
 
ChiefOperator said:
LA_Guy-

Thanks. Have you used the C400 as well? It seems to be identical to the C300 except for the XLR connectors. Also, what setting are you using for your application, "composite?"
Click to expand...

I am using composite mode, with engine #1 as the AGC and #2 as the peak limiter. The mix controls are all set full 'wet'. I am not using their presets. I have the controls set pretty conservatively, as I'm not concerned with using these to be loud-only to even out operator errors. It's my understanding that the only difference between the 300 and 400 is the XLR connectors. I didn't need them because I was coming out of Barix Exstreamer 100s (RCA jacks). All I did was take some RCA-RCA cables, cut one end off and solder on 1/4 inch plugs. Since I came out of the units' coax digital output, I didn't need balanced outputs either-the digital outputs go straight into the Motorola multiplexer.
These networks are 128 kbps MPEG-2 digital stereo audio channels sent out on the Playboy cable TV channels' ASI data stream to cable head ends all over North America.
 
LA_Guy said:
Goran, I disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've noticed that we have different criteria on what we consider good (enough) quality audio. But that's OK :) To each his own, as they say.


Regards,
Goran Tomas
 
"Playboy Channel", i doubt those watching are lending a critical ear to the audio.IF you know what i mean.(ha)Too busy checking out those Hooters.
 
oldiesstation said:
"Playboy Channel", i doubt those watching are lending a critical ear to the audio.IF you know what i mean.(ha)Too busy checking out those Hooters.
Click to expand...

Actually, these six audio only networks only piggyback on Playboy's ASI video data stream. I do have a funny story though. We had to go into their MCR room to check out the bit rates of the six streams. As I walked in, there was a 60 inch plasma TV on the wall-and on it was an orgy going on! Flesh everywhere-there must have been 10 girls and five guys. It was surreal-all these people (both men and women) just doing their thing there with this super hard core sex right on the screen lifesize. Their DOE watched me pick my jaw up off the floor and laughed. He told me that the first few weeks people were like I was, but then it becomes routine.
 
LOL,laguy.Kinda like when porno accidently got on the air during the Super Bowl.Most people thought it was a PSA showing how the Obama stimulus plan would work.(hee-haw).Back to the thread though, actually those chips are pretty decent in the C300.DSP chips are dirt cheap today and better than ever.That box is a steal for the money.
 
And, of course the Aphex is a wonderful box and certainly suitable for STL protection. But I've looked at the output of the TC and listened to it carefully. I really see nothing about it that precludes it from consideration.
 
Maybe I'm "Old School" but why use a box ahead of the STL? We processed the signal at the studio thru the stereo generator and sent the composite to the STL. On the transmitter end of the STL we fed the composite thru a composite clipper. Never had any issues, and we could tweak our Greg Labs units right there in the studio and not in some cement "pillbox" at the transmitter site!
 
The processor at the xmtr site can correct any sonic issues created by the STL. At the studio, the processor may not be able to make these corrections.
 
Having had the luck - ill or good - of doing a simulcast on two FMs wherein one fed l and r audio on an STL pair and the other fed composite, I'll tell you, the composite does better, as long as you've enough RF to keep the receiver IF in saturation. We had only a CP-803 on the composite to skim the bounces off the signal which the detector put on. Optimod with a couple of audio prisms at the studio. Other side had prisms feeding the STLs, and the Optimod/CP-803 at the plant. You get phase changes in the paths using discrete which you don't see on composite. Other than the paths, the plants were identical.
 
Having to deal with phone lines prior to running a STL, I was going to the transmitter site every time the weather changed and re-setting the Greggs .. We didn't have any issues after the STL was installed shooting the composite to the transmitter site with a Mosley PC505c and using a Mod Sciences composite clipper ahead of the transmitter only. Moving the CRL and Gregg Labs to the studio allowed me to make corrections at the studio. During my weekly checks, including stereo alignment, the PC505 remained rock solid. Unlike our competition who used an Optimod at the transmitter site and could not always access it..
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom