The passion of processing...

[LA_Guy]

Processing is a very subjective thing-as we can all tell by the passion of the earlier thread. For many years, I held onto my 8100s and XTs, mainly because they frankly sounded better then the Digital Optimods and Omnias of the time.

Just for the record-my rebuilding of Optimods and other broadcast equipment goes back to 1978 with the original 8000A. I along with Bill Sacks and a common friend (Bill and him no longer talk, though I am friends with both of them) did the seminal research on how analog opamps and passive components in a broadcast studio alter the music going through them (though, the guru on this stuff is Walt Jung). With both their help I had the first completely transformerless radio station in america (with an Autogram board no less!). Though this is commonplace today, in 1981 it was a first.

The reason I elaborate is simple: I know analog as well as the best of them do. There are still Scott, Dyna and McIntosh tube amplifiers in my basement-along with a working pair of KLH model 9s!

The statement I am about to say today will be treated with shock by some of my peers, but that does not make it any less true: I believe that today's (2009) modern digital processors have the capability to run rings around their analog parents. Why? because of the following things:

1. Modern DSP processing chips run rings around earlier DSP digital processors and also have the capability to run rings around their analog parents.
2. The Achille's heel of any digital process is it's conversion between Analog to digital and back. Early converters simply sucked! They sounded like $hit. Today's do not.
3. Modern DSP processing chips run rings around the earlier ones. Also, today's DSP programmers 'get' what good sounding audio should sound like.
4. The DSP chips can do things that analog circuits could never do-such as implement perfect filters. Older analog processors were filled with 'band aids' to deal with analog's imperfections. As an example, the low pass filter in the analog Optimods contain a shelf up filter before the 15 kHz low pass filter and a shelf down after it. This was done to turn the main filter's overshoots into undershoots. Bob even got a patent on it. Today's digital in software filters HAVE no overshoot-and even if they did, it could be fixed in nthe next firmware update.

In some ways today's audio processors give you too much control-there seems to be a million settings. But that's a good thing too.

 

[littlejohn]

Your points are well taken. However, the modern boxes also have the capabiluity of achieving what a lot of programming and operating people want - the loudest thing in town - witout as much in the way of artifacts as the older stuff. The idea of 'as much' is where the rock runs into the hard spot. Set one up for nice clean audio, and it surprises many how good they sound. But, then you hear "That's nice, now let's get it louder". And nice is sacrificed. Samesame with the HD digital, it gets to 'reduce the stream and add...' whatever. 96KB/sec does fairly good audio witrh modern CODECs. 64 doesn't. And no one has yet shown me any sort of information which leads to the conclusion that loud leads to listeners.

 

[wgliradio]

This goes for analog or digital, but I don't feel there is one off the shelf audio processor available to day that I am happy with.

I know the same was true for Frank in 1983 when he was at Z-100. That drove him to experimentation, Cutting edge and Omnia.

I guess I'm the same way, I personally think that when you walk into any market, the radio stations have this sameness to them. I want to break out of that.

 

[whit979]

I personally think that when you walk into any market, the radio stations have this sameness to them. I want to break out of that.

I agree with that statement. If you come to the Birmingham market there are clearly two different sounds — the Clear Channel "super-enhance the punch and highs" sound, and the Cox "everything is compressed and up-front" sound. I find that this is likely due to these clusters using the same engineer for each of their stations, who either really likes one particular type of sound or who just doesn't care enough to play around beyond one type of settings that he/she plugs in on every station. It's sad because with all of the processing power being used in a market like that, I think some of these stations are missing a great opportunity to have a rich, bold sound — instead, one is like the other regardless of format.

 

[cgould]

I personally think that when you walk into any market, the radio stations have this sameness to them. I want to break out of that.

I agree with that statement. If you come to the Birmingham market there are clearly two different sounds — the Clear Channel "super-enhance the punch and highs" sound, and the Cox "everything is compressed and up-front" sound. I find that this is likely due to these clusters using the same engineer for each of their stations, who either really likes one particular type of sound or who just doesn't care enough to play around beyond one type of settings that he/she plugs in on every station. It's sad because with all of the processing power being used in a market like that, I think some of these stations are missing a great opportunity to have a rich, bold sound — instead, one is like the other regardless of format.

I'll restate from another thread, something I've run into that is a factor too:

I blame much of this "sameness" syndrome not necessarily on the audio processor, but on the mentality of many programmers who have been taught to imitate others rather than strike out and do something new. Rather than trying to craft a new sound for a new station in a market, more often than not most want to sound like another station they have heard, or another one in the market.

Many of the processors out there can sound like many things, but the same sound keeps on persisting. Another reason is many do not understand enough of the fundamentals of audio processing to even know what to do outside the factory presets....which led me to write so many articles on the subject, and later compile almost all of it into my website www.cgould.com.

I'll be writing more in the near future...for now there are a couple of big projects keeping my busy ;-)

-C

 

[The F Mister]

One other thing why digital is better than analog. Digital will sound the same after a year (if you leave it alone). Analog will drift away and needs re-adjusting and eventually maintenance.

 

[Sgeirk]

Getting a loud, good competitive sound with an 8100, or older processors...was an art. Much more science involved today.

I, for one, completely agree that today's DSPs beat the daylights out of using older gear both from a sound and upkeep standpoint. The only downside of today's digital gear...is that when it goes...it's gone...usually with no obvious warning. For example, I've seen front panel lcd's just up and DIE at on DSP units.. I can truly say that never happened with an 8100!

I don't care what you alter, stick in front of, place inside, or after an 8100, I'll beat it and sound more open with a properly setup DSP processor, STL and exciter.

There's still a little art to it. Not as much as there used to be.

 

[littlejohn]

Every time I ride back through Birmingspam, makes me wanna cry. There was a time when the stations there kicked a$$ and took names. Every one had its nuances, and preety much all of them sounded good. Now, they're all pretty much mush and artifacts. The shame of it is, with the mordern gear in place, they have the capability of sounding even better than they did in the 80s.Times and tastes change, I suppose.

 

[FFoti1]

The statement I am about to say today will be treated with shock by some of my peers, but that does not make it any less true: I believe that today's (2009) modern digital processors have the capability to run rings around their analog parents. Why? because of the following things:

1. Modern DSP processing chips run rings around earlier DSP digital processors and also have the capability to run rings around their analog parents.
2. The Achille's heel of any digital process is it's conversion between Analog to digital and back. Early converters simply sucked! They sounded like $hit. Today's do not.
3. Modern DSP processing chips run rings around the earlier ones. Also, today's DSP programmers 'get' what good sounding audio should sound like.
4. The DSP chips can do things that analog circuits could never do-such as implement perfect filters. Older analog processors were filled with 'band aids' to deal with analog's imperfections. As an example, the low pass filter in the analog Optimods contain a shelf up filter before the 15 kHz low pass filter and a shelf down after it. This was done to turn the main filter's overshoots into undershoots. Bob even got a patent on it. Today's digital in software filters HAVE no overshoot-and even if they did, it could be fixed in nthe next firmware update.

In some ways today's audio processors give you too much control-there seems to be a million settings. But that's a good thing too.

Dana,

Excuse me, but I need some oxygen!!

Well written post!!

You might wish to add one more item to your above list of reasons. With any analog algorithm, once it's mathematically modeled, porting it to digital is easy. Obviously, the model must be an exact duplicate, or the premiss falls apart.

Lately, I've heard from a few broadcasters who wish to break out of the "sameness" mentioned in a prior post. Here's hoping this creates a new trend for broadcast processing.

-Frank Foti

 

[Bengalsfan]

If you program it, they will come. Too many radio folks are playing it safe because they see this mountain of debt they have to service. Nobody wants to take chances on laying an egg because there WILL be hell to pay. Listeners are beginning to reject it because they can now go to satellite or their own playlist on an iPod instead. Until someone wises up and starts programming like they did in the mid 60's and personality radio, little will change but lots will get worse.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

These days cluster engineers are so overloaded that even IF they wanted to taylor their audio to be a bit different, they simply don't have time to goof with it. Programmers used to only have one or two stations to deal with and demanded a certain sound. These days they have a whole building of stations to deal with and a stack of work to go with it. If it sounds sort of right and on the air, they are happy. Processing, like most all other aspects of radio today, has become cookie cutter and dumbed down. Cluster engineers generally plug the thing in, set levels, and pick a preset. They might modify it slightly, but dinking with the settings for days on end for the best sound went out the window along with real live jocks and one programmer per signal. It's sad, but it's today's radio in general. I wouldn't look for an improvement until some of the McCorporates get around to going chapter 7 and shed off some stations to people that actually care.

BTW Frank... I put a Smooth Jazz station on the air about two years ago with one of your 6's. It's one of the few stations I've litterly picked a setting and went with it, only adding a bit more high EQ. I litterly spent months dinking with an Orban 8300 to get it right on a classic hits station. I think both boxes are excellent but your presets are certainly more along what the stations are looking for in general.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

As a side note, so many of the stations in larger markets seem to be much crappier sounding than they used to be. I guess it's all about 'loudness' but all I hear is muddy grunge. I know the boxes will do better audio but the people setting them appearently don't want good they want super loud. At some point though the max loud looses all dynamics and, to my ears, actually looses an punch so they gain nothing but horrible audio.

 

[rrsounds]

As a side note, so many of the stations in larger markets seem to be much crappier sounding than they used to be. I guess it's all about 'loudness' but all I hear is muddy grunge. I know the boxes will do better audio but the people setting them appearently don't want good they want super loud. At some point though the max loud looses all dynamics and, to my ears, actually looses an punch so they gain nothing but horrible audio.

It's like a ratchet wheel...there's no turning back. And that's a real shame.

Kind Regards,
David

 

[stephend2]

I can't stand the "mush" all around... we have 2 other FMs in the market here and both are absolutely horrible, which I think is more old equipment than anything else. We are by far the best sounding station in the market and even neighboring markets. Loudness is not everything, I can't remember right off who originally said this, but I'm with them on "if the listeners want it louder, they have a volume knob". We're slightly below most in loudness, but make up for it in clarity. Just enough processing to give a little punch and comparable sound to a CD played back in the car, not like typical radio at all.

I've spent many hours tweaking and listening to get it to this point and I as well as the station owner and quite a few listeners really appreciate it. i'm still new to radio but I've been a fan of great audio for most of my life. still at less than a year into some part time broadcast engineering but raised around quite a bit of a lot of radio, albeit a lot of two way stuff more than broadcast.

And thanks to Frank Foti for a great little processor - the Omnia One. We're using one on our AM and it works great, I didn't know AM could sound so good by the time I got through with it. Before there was nothing but an innovonics 222 with no other processing.

 

[RolfTaylor]

As a side note, so many of the stations in larger markets seem to be much crappier sounding than they used to be. I guess it's all about 'loudness' but all I hear is muddy grunge. I know the boxes will do better audio but the people setting them appearently don't want good they want super loud. At some point though the max loud looses all dynamics and, to my ears, actually looses an punch so they gain nothing but horrible audio.

It's like a ratchet wheel...there's no turning back. And that's a real shame.

Kind Regards,
David

How true! The really sad thing is that this radio disease has spread to source producers

 

[rorban]

I can't remember right off who originally said this, but I'm with them on "if the listeners want it louder, they have a volume knob".

I believe that was me. The quote was "every radio has a volume control and every listener knows how to use it."

Bob Orban

 

[rorban]

At Orban, our philosophy is this: Above all, we believe that it is important for on-air sound designers to put themselves in the shoes of their target audiences when they adjust processing as opposed to projecting their preferences onto the audience, perhaps because of ego. Achieving this "selflessness" can be a lot more difficult than it sounds; it's a snare that can trap any of us without our consciously realizing it. Moreover, the world of on-air audio processing tends to be insular and it is easy for its adepts to react to each other instead of to the needs of the audience. This is also a trap, particularly when male sound designers create processing intended for female-skewing audiences.

This philosophy has a natural consequence: in our opinion, the most important factor in designing on-air sound texture is eliminating negatives that drive listeners away. I think we can agree that radio listeners are influenced far more by programming than by processing texture. Consequently, a range of textures can work well with a given format as long as these textures do not interfere with the programming by unconsciously fatiguing or otherwise turning off the audience. "First, do no harm."

We at Orban are aware of many successful stations that use Optimod factory presets. While these may not be the "flashiest" things around, they are consciously designed according to the "minimize negatives" philosophy. If sound designers want to modify presets extensively, we certainly offer the controls to facilitate this. With the advent of our clipping distortion controller (first introduced in the 8400), it has become easier to modify presets while retaining the "minimize negatives" principle. This is one of the main reasons why we developed it. (Of course, it made our lives as factory preset designers easier too.)

It has been said that Orban listens to feedback less than other companies. This may appear to be true, but be assured that we listen and that we have an ongoing R&D program whose goal is creating refinements and making discoveries that improve our processing. However, for us to accept new developments as true "improvements," they must be consistent with our principle of "minimizing negatives." Anything less risks compromising our reputation and does not serve our customers well.

Bob Orban

 

[cgould]

I will have to agree with Bob in that any processing company who wishes to be successful HAS to listen to its customers.

What grows from that is that each company has its own philosophy as to the design of an audio processor topology. This comes from ideas put forth by the designers from their experiences with previous approaches as well as the experiences from fellow "disgruntled" end-users.

Some may choose to play it safe, and or play 'not to lose', others may decide to go to the edge and gain whatever advantage they can get to win. Some want something in-between.

Just like cars, there is a choice for everyone, and finding the manufacturer that will give you the tools to do what you want is key.

This is what makes test driving processors so important. You'll never know what you'll like 'til you try it!

-Cornelius

 

[jry]

I have been tweaking processors for years, starting with my D A P in the early 80's.
We have also had Orban units. We had bad luck with them but it wasn't the problem of Orban. We always bought stations whose ownership and some of my bosses, wouldn't invest in maintaining them. Dried caps, etc. Pity as, in the hands of a good engineer with a good ear, these are great boxes. I had one engineer, still in the business, that screwed us over with a few audio prisms. Yikes!
During the AM Stereo deal, we had good luck with CRL Amigos. Easy to set up and consistent.
I am a firm believer in processing and, as an owner, will not scrimp on the audio chain.
We have pretty much settled in on the Orban digital for FM (although we are playing around with a new Omnia on our new backup tranmitter) and the Omnia on our AM stations. We built a new site in Lansing and tried the new Omnia AM unit. Unbelievable loudness, sound and clarity. Lots of punch and easy to set up.

 

[rrsounds]

<snip> in our opinion, the most important factor in designing on-air sound texture is eliminating negatives that drive listeners away. I think we can agree that radio listeners are influenced far more by programming than by processing texture. Consequently, a range of textures can work well with a given format as long as these textures do not interfere with the programming by unconsciously fatiguing or otherwise turning off the audience. "First, do no harm."
</snip>
Bob Orban

Absolutely with you, here, Mr. Orban. The Hippocratic Oath, as applied to broadcast processing!

In my view artful processing is, in a nutshell, certainly as much what you don't do as what you do do.

And as critically important as this approach is with pristine material, it becomes even more important (and, I might add, difficult) with material that is already heavily processed.

Kind Regards,
David