To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob maybe)

[radiotoday]

To be (digital), or not to be, that is the FM question ( for all the digital processors in reality)

To be, or not to be (William Shakespeares Hamlet 3/1)
The thing is that in Skeaspears days radio hasn’t been invented yet from Gulielmo Marconi, and to be very honest i don’t think that Hamlet from his site would be so interested about digital also. But from my perspective, i really have lots of thoughts about it.

I don’t want to sound naïve or romantic, or even a old scool lover. ( I am a total technocrat ) But, really I have a question. WHY DO WE USE DIGITAL. We use per example digital audio processors to sound as more as … analog it gets at the end. Optimod 8400 which was a first generation total digital processor had so much problems – low bit rate analysis – against the 8500 optimod which has a bigger bit rate, as a result THE SOUND CAN BE MORE NATURAL….WHICH MEANS IN THE FM LAQUAGE MORE TRULY REAL OR MORE …ANALOG.
I really don’t get it. We try to solve the problem from the digital sound to be more natural, and at the same time natural is analog. SO WHY DO WE USE DIGITAL AUDIO PROCESSING AT ALL?
WHY USING DIGITAL CONSOLES WHEN THE SOUND IS … REALLY BAD - NON ANALOG/NATURAL.
Starting of the 90’s I had the luck (?) to use for the first time the first broadcast Harris console. Except the fact that the console was pretty much every 3-4 days off and non working during power problems, first generations problems, bad electronic design etc, the sound was horrible. The listeners at those days did ask trough telephones why the sound has changed. Because before we had a sac 200 soundcraft console and the sound was sweet.

So why do we use digital? I ask frankly the same think which i did at the time when the vinyl has gone home and the cds replaced the vinyl and the analog feeling also.

All the medium cost FM processors per example don’t sound real. The result is that the listener is getting a grunge feeling with high frequencies near to what the dog makes him mad. Humans cant listen to the frequencies what the dog can, but the result is the same. He gets mad.

Listeners can never explain WHY they dont like the sound from a station, but they can always understand say WHEN they dont like it.

Hopefully I will get an answer

Radiotoday

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

I agree with you about the being off the air part due to digital happy-crap. I'm not against digital or newer technology, but I hate being on the cutting edge to be cut over and over again. Lucky for me, most of my digital stuff works great. We don't have HD transmission, and every day that goes by I thank the Lord we don't. My friends that have to endure all the "go reboot the computer at the transmitter site" or "we're loosing bits on our new digital link" suffer the frustration and listener loss due adopting technology too fast IMHO. I don't think a lot of stations even need digital console, however, the technology is considerably more solid these days. A good console manufacture can make one these days nearly as reliable as the analog counterpart. So the only real question is price if a person doesn't consider lousier manufactures' stuff.

On the subject of digital audio processors, the good outweighs the bad in most cases. Stereo seperation, clean sounding audio, and overall loudness are MUCH easier to achive with a digital processor from at least the big two guys. I do belive a person should stay with medium to more expensive grade processors from Orban or Telos-Omnia. Both are fine products. The BW stuff might be fine, however, I have't had any real experience with their audio processors. I have to tell you that the 8300 I have on one station and the new Omnia (higher priced one) on another station I mess with are some of the sweetest sound stuff I've ever heard on FM. Sometimes I have to pinch myself to remember it's coming over terrestrial FM radio. Settings can be maladjusted like any other thing. In the digital boxes they can be VERY misadjusted, and that's where I feel many get the bad impression of the technology. Like most things pushing stuff to the max produces poor results.

 

[FFoti1]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

I firmly believe that 'digital' gets a bad name, and it's not the fault of the tech, but in how it is applied. Consider, that all of the analog circuit models that have been, and are, discussed in this forum, can be replicated digitally...AND...they will sound the same, as long as the issues of sampling rate, and word length are adhered to. The reasoning is because every analog circuit can be modeled mathematically. Once modeled into a math analysis, it can then be ported into code and replicated digitally. This is easily demonstrated with the proper setup, and utilization of digital gear, independent if it is an audio processor, console, routing switcher, etc.

Now, to the thoughts proposed in the post:

1. Digital processors offer technical precision that is not possible with analog. Filtering is a prime example. We can generate text book filters, and maintain phase and time-domain performance, that analog cannot. As a matter of fact, there is an entire family of filters, Finite Impulse Response (FIR), that are not possible to create in analog. These filters provide precision bandwidth control, and are phase linear in their design.

2. To my experience in developing DSP based processors, our goal was to improve upon the efforts of prior designs. Be they analog or digital. We did not feel it was of value to clone an older analog design, as that already existed, and what would be the point, or the use, of recreating what had already been done. (If this is a real desire by the industry, we'll gladly consider it.)

3. While digital technology has been around quite awhile, I'm convinced that it is not fully understood in the area of application. By example: Most digital systems offer wider dynamic range than analog systems. Yet, end-users continually misapply audio levels that lack regard for the system headroom, and distortion occurs. This is not a fault of the tech, but of the application.

Consider the following tech claim: If you take the best known analog amplifier, <insert your desired device here: tube, transistor, opamp, doesn't matter> and misuse it, the result will be distortion and poor performance. When that happens, is the fault due to the analog device, or the application? Same applies for digital.

Since this thread touches on digital processing, I must say that we can create better sonic performance, for radio, using a digital processor as compared to the older analog 'cousins.' Do not take this claim as a knock as analog processing. To the contrary. There are many functions the digital brethren offer that analog cannot. Thus, for those whom feel that an analog design can out perform a digital box, please share with me an analog box that can do the following:

1. Diversity-Delay (outside/ancillary box not accepted)
2. Tight low pas filtering for the conventional path in a HDAM system.
3. Distortion-Control that yields competitive loudness required in today's radio environment.
4. Adjustable filters, on the fly.
5. FM composite processing that provides 19kHz pilot and SCA protection.
6. Phase linear and time aligned cross-over networks.

I can go on with more, and hopefully you get the picture.

Going forward, we will offer new concepts in audio processing, that have not been done before, and further separate the differences between analog and digital design. I have some of those running now, and the industry will see them in due time. Probably not this year though. Some are radically different from the analog and early digital processing designs.

In closing, it is very possible that the 'attraction' to analog processing is due to the built-in sonic anomalies that people got used to hearing from the nature of analog designs. Those being non-linearities, and other 'analogesque' quirks associated with analog. THAT, I can understand and accept. If this is the desire of the industry, a digital box can be made to offer those effects.

-Frank Foti

 

[SirRoxalot]

Digital vs. Analog

Perhaps I have an oversimplified perception of digital vs. analog, but here goes...

Very simply, analog cannot be transported or reproduced without adding noise. Every step in an analog audio chain - every amplifier, cable, connector, analog processor, STL, etc. - either reduces the signal level or adds noise to the original signal.

Audio that is sampled at a high rate (at least 2x the highest frequency), with decent quantization (at least 16-bits, or 65,536 levels of amplitude), can be reduced to a stream of binary numbers that can be transported and/or reproduced without any loss, or any added noise. Furthermore, mathematic formulas can be applied to manipulate those data streams in order to create new effects that can improve(?) the original audio. Whatever manipulation is done can be controlled, and reproduced an infinite number of times.

The downside of digital is that it will add delay to the original signal. Also, the data stream can require a lot of bandwidth, and a lot of storage. Throw in the vagaries of software programming, and you do have some significant hurdles to overcome.

The development of higher-speed processors, faster memory, optical transmission techologies, and high-speed mass storage devices have opened the way for a revolution in audio processing, storage, and reproduction. If we use it wisely (let's avoid an IBOC discussion), it can be a significant improvement over pure analog.

 

[Info-warrior]

Digital Vs. Analog

As someone who during the mid 1990s was still trying to find the latest albums on vinyl, I have a great appreciation for fine analog systems. However, maybe my tastes have changed, or my hearing has gotten worse since I find today's digital systems to be very pleasing (mp3 is sometimes an exception, though when encoded well can sound good).
A few months ago, I set up my old turntable to play some records and I noticed some things; such as the audio getting progressively more distorted as the record neared the end of the side, subtle warble from 45s that turned out not to have perfectly formed spindle holes or slight warping--yes I always stored my records vertically and in their sleeves--and other surface noises.

I grew up with records and cassettes and even during my teens and early 20s I never noticed these distortions or did I just get used to them?

I totally agree that early digital systems had their problems and many of those problems are returning as reduced bitrate media becomes more popular. However, linear digital formats sound so good that I haven't looked for a vinyl copy of an album in years.

Since the thread is about processing and broadcast equipment, I'll add one more element to the tech side listed above. Calibration. Analog stereo generators for instance, with balanced modulators, require periodic alignment for carrier null and to ensure best seperation. Digital units rarely require any alignment. It's been my experience, anyway, that when a digital unit needs that kind of recalibration, something is seriously wrong. We can argue that low maintainance equipment is in part responsible for stations cutting back on engineering staff. However, in operations that value the importance of a talented engineer, low maintainance gear can allow the engineer more time to utilize their talent.

Not quite broadcasting in the strictest sense, but radio related.

I was talking some sideband skip on CB a few months ago and a guy in Minisota came back to me. He had just unbelieveable audio and a rock solid drift and warble free signal. After a while he told me he was using a software defined radio. What an amazing piece of gear. Everything was done digitally: processing, carrier generation, modulation and so forth.

I like my Tempo 2020, with it's chain linkages on some of the tuning controls and mode switches, but it has it's weaknesses particularly drift. Where as the Tempo would require modifications to change it's audio bandwidth, the software radio can be reconfigured just by writing new code.

 

[Sgeirk]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

We go digitial because it's potentially easier in every respect. Hey, there's been bumps but:

I'll take a computer with linear audio over carts and tape heads, or styli (ick!) in a broadcast environment. Any day.

A newer digital board and a new, expensive digital audio processor (tastefully setup) w/clean audio?

It can sound EONS better than we did pre-digital. Way more headroom...and definition.

 

[TomT]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

We're in Market 249, last I looked. We use digital processing, much more flexible and versatile than analog.

We use digital editing ( Sound Forge--have since version 4). Much more flexible than reel tape and a razor blade. Of course, the production is then played back off computer automation. Music and spots all stored 16 bit 44Khz--h.d. space is cheap.

Most of our programming is satellite fed, which means more digital streams (MP2 or a variety thereof, I do believe).

But beyond that, I try to keep everything in analog. Analog consoles are relatively cheap and good now. We have two Auditronics 2500's for on-air for the two stations, and an R55E for production. We have a combined site for one station so the path from studio to the transmitter is through a pair of 111c's and 50 feet of wire to the Omnia inputs. STL to the other station (25 mile path) is a 606. Analog exciters--Armstrong and BE FX-50.

Granted, with two stations and three studios, we have a simple complex. We do use some supplemental processing--Orban ST's side-chained for the spots to keep stop-sets even (satellite music flows straight through). Orban 424 on POTS audio with ART EQ's for sports. Digital consoles--or more accurately--digital control surfaces with central rack routing makes sense for those complexes with five or six stations and multiple studios. But it is a trade-off to keep some sanity in what is really too many stations in one building.

Even with this simple plant I still have a whole flock of ups's to hold everything digital .up during power dips (have a generator for studios & single phase backup transmitter--but it takes 30~45 seconds to get up to speed). A maintenance headache. Indeed, when we installed the generator I ran a test by flipping the breaker feeding the sub-panel Everything held up fiine--except that a brand new APC UPS immediately died.

 

[cgould]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

I think that the changing times have all but obsoleted most *new* analog broadcast processing efforts.

The amount of work that goes into R&D alone to produce analog boxes would result in ones that are almost as expensive as the DSP ones, and not be as versatile. Can you imagine how much an 8100 / XT would cost if you had all the controls broken out in a similar manner as the 8200?

That would be one expensive 8100 / XT2 with a LOT of adjustments, and no means to instantly go back to where you were before you tried adjusting the processor all night long the night before, and discovered you should have stopped adjusting a long time ago!

​

The Unity 2000 had quite a few parameters to adjust, and instant recall in an analog box, but it was expensive to produce, and only had a small fraction of the performance & power that can be found in the more recent DSP developments to come from Frank's lab.

My "old" analog processor discussed in a different thread is pretty recent, pretty advanced for an analog (leveling) processor.

What I found when looking into the cost of that project for giggles, I discovered that it would become the most expensive processor to produce, and it is only the equivalent to the "front end" of what I'm doing in DSP now...and the DSP front end is *much* better! (performance-wise)

So, technology marches on and, for practicality and performance reasons, brand new analog processors are fading from the broadcast scene.

Early digital broadcast consoles (IMO) were all worthless until recently when the digital router and the broadcast console have become more-or-less the same device. Now, these consoles are something worth switching to...

-C

 

[kyscott]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

It can sound EONS better than we did pre-digital. Way more headroom...and definition.

More headroom, definition, seperation, brighter. You name it. I had the public radio clients here in Louisville for a while. They were digital from the console to the exciter. They are the cleanest sounding stations in town. NPR, classical and AAA formats. All of them sound marvelous. The plant is totally digital, also. If I had the chance to build a studio, it would be built just like these stations. I believe that having a digital plant is way better than the way we used to do it.

 

[rrsounds]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

Repeatability. repeatability. repeatability.

You get the idea.

This reliable repeatability factors into all aspects of digital implementation: from theory to practical design to manufacturing to setup to operator interface to long-term maintenance.

A (properly functioning) digital system will give you the exact same results from unit to unit, day in, day out, with no need for initial or periodic calibration.

For example, let's say you come up with a processor preset that sounds exactly the way you like it. If you copy it, send it to another station in the chain or just store it, you can rest assured that if you re-load it or even load into another identical unit miles or years away, it will perform just as it did when you created it.

It's a different world from analog.

Kind Regards,
David

 

[radiotoday]

Digital vs Analog.

Historically speaking at 1974 Bob Orban brought the optimod 8000, around 10 years after the optimod 8100 changed the way radio sounded and after around a decade, beginning of the 90’s, optimod 8200 came and the digital way started. ( Also we need to have in mind that 8200 to be honest, wasn’t really a total digital processor, in fact it’s a “digital’’ sound from a “analog box”, or if you want a truly rebuilt 8100) However, from that point to our days, every 2-3 (!) years the “first generation” kids are coming up with new models, in reality upgraded sound boxes. So after lots of “experimental” we captured at the end a 8500 optimod. At the same way from a Unity 2000 from the starting of the 90’s, to the 6 band omnia box, every 2-3 years something newer has came up. Because all of those processors needed a upgrade with better refines, etc. So the thing is this. In only 15 years from orban to omnia we have around 10 – 12 processors (due to software which has been always upgraded for each box like a “newer” machine) until we had finally the 6band digital box from Frank (thx by the way for the fast reply) and from bob the optimod 8500.

Simple conclusion. IN 2O YEARS 2-3 ANALOG PROCESSORS HAD GIVEN US EXCELLENT RESULTS AND SUDDENLY IN 15 YEARS WE NEED (?) MORE THEN 25 TO GET THE SAME THING! (INCLUDING AL THE PROCESSORS FROM BOTH COMPANIES WITH NEWER /UPRGADE/ SOFTWARE VERSIONS). - OF COURSE BOTH OF THEM, (NOBODY CAN DOUBT ABOUT THAT) THE 6BAND OMNIA AND THE 8500 OPTIMOD ARE STATE OF THE ART. They are both sounding (even if we are talking about to 2 different sound schools) after upgrades and upgrades and upgrades so good. BUT THEY Do IT KNOW, AFTER 15 YEARS! (OF EXPIRIENCE) We need to think that 25 digital boxes in 15 years have get to the same point of success in the market sales which – in other times – that happened with only 2-3 analog boxes for over 20 years.
At this stage i need to remind also the fact that the analog processors haven’t lost totally there value and rumor. We all know what’s happening with radio stations which do searching and paying lots of money for – per example optimod 8100 and similar- ANALOG PROCESSORS who are 25 YEARS OLD!!! Whys that? For romantic reasons? Old school lovers ? Or what? I don’t think so. Lets be very honest. It is something beyond that. We both know radio stations middle and big market (who do have the money to buy the digital omnia or the digital orban and they still prefer to sound analog, and yes, they buy a 8100 or similar. (aphex, inovonics etc) And of course there lots of them who use it for back up, etc. Nobody sais that they do sale the digital to buy analog. Of course not. But they don’t reject the analog to get involved always with digital. I agree with Frank that lots of things are of course better with the digital processors. BUT, at some specific technical specs. Not to mention that I could notice some positive things from the analog philosophy which works for a station such as.
1. The Digital bass. Getting the bass to sound so powerful as possible, the delay time is needed to control the low frequencies at the digital processor. And after that, when we do get a very hot bass (which at the end sounds like the old analog one  ) another problem comes out ( at the optimods) HOW WILL THE PURE ANNOUNCER NOW LISTEN TO HIS VOICE ON AIR? WITH DELAY? This isn’t only a problem for small market radio stations. It is a very huuuuge problem at all the market.
2. Omnia from the other side doesn’t have this sort of problem using delay time to control the bass… BUT LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH the 6 BAND processor when it needs to drive a cheap transmitter which cant go down to 200 Hz or less (not a dual speed one of course) I know some folks which suddenly have lost the signal from the air since those Pll at those cheap transmitters suddenly UNLOCKED. And the signal flows … away. Of course theres a solution here. Turn off the ‘super bass” from the 6 band and the problem goes away. BUT WITH THIS SOLUTION THE EXCELLENT BASS GOES ALSO AWAY 
3. The stereo “wideness” at the digital processors has been established with a stereo enhacer always included to secure wide stereo. So in fact if you bypass the stereo enhacer – which is always needed at the dsps, the stereo wideness will be very difficult to get the stereo image like per example 8100 had on his own. (the old classic patent from Modulation sciences , the stereo enhacer has been accepted in reality years after from almost all the... digital processors as a software of course. )
Speaking with the words of Frank, digital can simulate everything from the analog world. The question is why should we simulated something when we can have it originally 
4. The UPS. With DSPs I think what the most stations ask from now one when they buy a digital processor is HEY, IS A UPS INCLUDED? The problems which the digital environments have if a UPS isnt before the power VAC from a dsp processor, it’s the worst thing ever. In US, yes the things might be better, but in EU … don’t ask. This is also for the digital consoles a often problem.
5. How old are you? I DON’T THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WHICH YOU WOULD ever ASK YOURE DIGITAL FM PROCESSOR. You know why. He cant get older then 2-3 years, since he needs always an upgrade – or much more a replace with a new one when he cnat do his job anymore or he needs to much upgrades to sound like the big boys. ( this means pay, pay, pay again every 2-3 years) And how old did we say can a analog processor be? 10 years old without problems? Maybe even more. etc
We don’t comparise the supersonic sound quality from digital with the analog one.
The theme is if its worth at the end just to win some more db loudness at the sound to go on with all of those troubles. This isn’t what makes a listener tune in. The product (the program) needs firstly to be good and if the sound is familiar, of course it helps. We might losing the meaning here. Nobody sais that suddenly the digital dsps will be replaced from analog processing.

It just a way of thinking. Is it worth to upgrade the upgrade? radiotoday

 

[FFoti1]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

Digital vs Analog.

<snipped>

1. The Digital bass. Getting the bass to sound so powerful as possible, the delay time is needed to control the low frequencies at the digital processor. And after that, when we do get a very hot bass (which at the end sounds like the old analog one  ) another problem comes out ( at the optimods) HOW WILL THE PURE ANNOUNCER NOW LISTEN TO HIS VOICE ON AIR? WITH DELAY? This isn’t only a problem for small market radio stations. It is a very huuuuge problem at all the market.
2. Omnia from the other side doesn’t have this sort of problem using delay time to control the bass… BUT LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH the 6 BAND processor when it needs to drive a cheap transmitter which cant go down to 200 Hz or less (not a dual speed one of course) I know some folks which suddenly have lost the signal from the air since those Pll at those cheap transmitters suddenly UNLOCKED. And the signal flows … away. Of course theres a solution here. Turn off the ‘super bass” from the 6 band and the problem goes away. BUT WITH THIS SOLUTION THE EXCELLENT BASS GOES ALSO AWAY 
3. The stereo “wideness” at the digital processors has been established with a stereo enhacer always included to secure wide stereo. So in fact if you bypass the stereo enhacer – which is always needed at the dsps, the stereo wideness will be very difficult to get the stereo image like per example 8100 had on his own. (the old classic patent from Modulation sciences , the stereo enhacer has been accepted in reality years after from almost all the... digital processors as a software of course. )
Speaking with the words of Frank, digital can simulate everything from the analog world. The question is why should we simulated something when we can have it originally 
4. The UPS. With DSPs I think what the most stations ask from now one when they buy a digital processor is HEY, IS A UPS INCLUDED? The problems which the digital environments have if a UPS isnt before the power VAC from a dsp processor, it’s the worst thing ever. In US, yes the things might be better, but in EU … don’t ask. This is also for the digital consoles a often problem.
5. How old are you? I DON’T THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WHICH YOU WOULD ever ASK YOURE DIGITAL FM PROCESSOR. You know why. He cant get older then 2-3 years, since he needs always an upgrade – or much more a replace with a new one when he cnat do his job anymore or he needs to much upgrades to sound like the big boys. ( this means pay, pay, pay again every 2-3 years) And how old did we say can a analog processor be? 10 years old without problems? Maybe even more. etc
We don’t comparise the supersonic sound quality from digital with the analog one.
The theme is if its worth at the end just to win some more db loudness at the sound to go on with all of those troubles. This isn’t what makes a listener tune in. The product (the program) needs firstly to be good and if the sound is familiar, of course it helps. We might losing the meaning here. Nobody sais that suddenly the digital dsps will be replaced from analog processing.

Radiotoday,

Not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish with this thread. But, I'l address the topics you posted:

1. Delay: We've had DSP based processors for more than 10 years now, and the delay issue has long been addressed. Some units offers low delay, and others provide a special low delay output. You're bringing attention to something that is not a problem.

2. Cheap Transmitters: A careful read of our Omnia manual (I believe the Optimod's as well) will explain why it is the responsibility of the broadcaster to use an exciter that is capable of handling the signal that is generated by the processor. We even explain what to look for in an exciter, to insure that the transmission system is capable of handling it. By example, you would not purchase a powerful automobile engine and then install it in a car body that cannot handle the power. Same applies here. If your exciter is not capable of handling the bass power of an Omnia, than you have some thinking to do. I'm not aware of any method that generates great sounding bass with an exciter that does not have the properly designed AFC loop inside, or a DSP based exciter that doesn't require it.

3. This claim about stereo wideness, in a DSP box with the enhancement OFF, is just not true. *All* of the DSP processors I have tested, ours and others, provide a mirror image of the stereo sound field that is presented to the inputs of the unit. The enhancement in our product is there to further manipulate the stereo sound field, and this is an optional effect, should the end-user desire it. After designing, building, and selling DSP processors for 10+ years, we have not received negative comment about the stereo performance of our gear. I'm venture an honest guess that the same is true for other DSP boxes too.

4. UPS: Ah, we live in a digital world. Aside from the audio processor, the majority of radio stations al over the world are now using digital devices that require UPS support. Even if an analog processor was used, there is still a very god chance that a UPS would be needed for a digital exciter, transmitter, STL, console, routing switcher, playout system, etc.

5. Upgrades: Not sure what you mean by this? Upgrades are there for the benefit of the product. We offer upgrades because we can. In the analog era, upgrading a product was VERY expensive, time consuming, and not practical at all. If you were to ask the designers of any analog product, I'm sure they will tell you that there were MANY items they wish they could have changed over the life of that product, but to have done so, would have been a financial disaster. If anything, the ability to upgrade a product, as needed, is a benefit to digital that analog can not easily offer. Consider the PC you are sing to view this post. Almost all of the you have made some type of upgrade for one reason or another. Many times, it is because some new added benefit is offered. I know sometimes it is also done to eliminate a software bug. Consider the latter statement, fixing a software bug is easily done via an update of the code. An analog bug requires replacing, modifying, or sometimes replacing the device itself.

If you feel that you are better off using analog gear, then by all means do so. All the best to your efforts. Trying and degrade what digital products bring to the picture, makes no sense, as history has now proven the benefits that digital technology affords the industry.

-Frank Foti

 

[rorban]

Frank and David have covered the most important points regarding the benefits that DSP brings to transmission audio processing: repeatability and the ability to do processing that is simply impossible in analog. I have only three things to add:

1. A digital processor brings the expertise of the manufacturers' sound designers to a wide audience of non-experts via factory presets and also allows engineers within broadcast groups to readily exchange user-developed presets between stations. (In the case of Optimods, there are actually hundreds of factory presets because of the availability of one-knob LESS-MORE modification of named factory presets. LESS-MORE provides optimized loudness/distortion tradeoffs that would have required a great deal of expertise and experience if the user was instead working with an analog processor.)

2. A digital processor can be equipped with a "setup wizard" (called "Quick Setup" in our products) that guides users quickly and reliably through the process of setting up the processor within the transmission chain. This is good for the customer and also good for manufacturers because it cuts down on support calls.

3. Within the processing itself, the key to improving processing is the availability of almost cost-free pure delay. (In an analog processor, achieving high-quality delays of more than about 200 microseconds over the audio band becomes prohibitively expensive, requiring long chains of allpass filters.) In digital processors, delay can be used for many different desirable things, including phase-linear filtering and "look-ahead" processing that allows the processor to make better decisions because the control sidechains can essentially "see into the future" and handle the audio more gracefully as a result. In our products, we also use look-ahead techniques to improve composite limiting compared to the results obtained from an analog composite clipper.

(Just as an aside, I first used look-ahead techniques in 1978 with clipping distortion controller in Optimod-AM 9000, which was of course an analog processor. This controller used a fairly sophisticated psychoacoustic model, incorporating both critical band masking calculations and a tonality detector. At the time, digital delays were prohibitively expensive, so I used analog bucket-brigade delay lines, whose performance was OK for AM but which would have been unacceptable for FM.)

 

[Info-warrior]

Digital vs Analog.

Historically speaking at 1974 Bob Orban brought the optimod 8000, around 10 years after the optimod 8100 changed the way radio sounded and after around a decade, beginning of the 90’s, optimod 8200 came and the digital way started. ( Also we need to have in mind that 8200 to be honest, wasn’t really a total digital processor, in fact it’s a “digital’’ sound from a “analog box”, or if you want a truly rebuilt 8100) However, from that point to our days, every 2-3 (!) years the “first generation” kids are coming up with new models, in reality upgraded sound boxes. So after lots of “experimental” we captured at the end a 8500 optimod. At the same way from a Unity 2000 from the starting of the 90’s, to the 6 band omnia box, every 2-3 years something newer has came up. Because all of those processors needed a upgrade with better refines, etc. So the thing is this. In only 15 years from orban to omnia we have around 10 – 12 processors (due to software which has been always upgraded for each box like a “newer” machine) until we had finally the 6band digital box from Frank (thx by the way for the fast reply) and from bob the optimod 8500.

Simple conclusion. IN 2O YEARS 2-3 ANALOG PROCESSORS HAD GIVEN US EXCELLENT RESULTS AND SUDDENLY IN 15 YEARS WE NEED (?) MORE THEN 25 TO GET THE SAME THING! (INCLUDING AL THE PROCESSORS FROM BOTH COMPANIES WITH NEWER /UPRGADE/ SOFTWARE VERSIONS).

Not totally true. The history of analog broadcast processing goes back further than Orban and Omnia. The 8000, 8100, and Omnia's equivilants were built upon decades of analog processing knowledge. Those boxes were created because people were dissatisified with the sound of other analog gear.

As for upgrades, there are loads of upgrades done to the Optimods. Several members of this forum have 8100s that they've modified and or added other gear infront of. This brings up one potential benefit of analog. Even though the Optimod had proprietary potted modules, talented engineers were still able to come up with modifications for it by studying the supporting circuits. Digital units on the other hand will require reverse engineering of computer code and possibly figuring out any DRM type hooks that need cracking in order to modify the function of the processor.

I think the reason it seems as though there have been more digital units than analog is that digital is relatively new territory. We're witnessing new developments just as the old timers saw the new developments in analog. 30 years from now, the next generation might be pining for the vintage sound of an Optimod 8500 or Omnia one.

 

[wgliradio]

A digital processor brings the expertise of the manufacturers' sound designers to a wide audience of non-experts via factory presets

No digital factory preset I have heard has been anything better than (barely) a starting point. In fact, I have heard many factory presets that make me wonder just who is actually building these things.

 

[radiotoday]

Well, i have to say thx for the digital education from Frank and Bob.
Beyond the answers which almost convinced me, i thing digital has 2 good lawyers.

However, beyond the technical explanations which I got and I will learn something from it, I start to believe what David said at the end. Digital. It's a different world from analog.
It sure is, and maybe my mistake is that i tried to search things about it from the technical side.
Seems to be wrong  After working over 2 decades in lots of stations at my area, some of these are still No1 in there market, AC, TOP40, URBAN ROCK even Talk radio formats etc, and being one of those who are standing in front of a console and behind the mic also, i try to see it maybe from a different angle.

I always believed that simplicity is the mother of success.

So the digital world seems for me still more complicated then analog was in the past. I am talking about the total environment of course in a station, with PCs, servers, automation software etc and how this is affecting the stations stuff and after that the listeners in a way. From the needed UPS almost anywhere, as Frank said  to anything else.

Maybe digital will be in 30 years like analog seems to be right know.

Old school.

 

[littlejohn]

Go get an 802D and an 802B exciter - state of the art analog and digital - and compare. Turn the baseband processor on on the D. Can't do that in analog. (And I know the 802D is an older design, but it beats the iother stuff available)
Do a hop from 12th floor to roof to tall tower to transmitter (and in one case, transmitter to next transmitter). This we do on an ongong basis with no loss of quality. I don't think we could in analog. As to latency, with the advent iof profanity delay and HD dleay for coding, off-air monitoring by the jock is a thing of the past. It is a non-issue.
And, Jack Williams is out of the industry currently at least, and Dotsch is building digital. There ain't any moire >good< analog consoles except used gear. Can two guys keep four stations in a top ten market going, with everything remote? Yup, using digital equipment we can. All analog? I doubt it seriously.
I installed BMX III seriel #1, it took about ten punchblocks for the wires. We got Wheatstone worksurfaces, I think there's 2 CAT 5 cables going to each one. Wanna put the phone on this fader? Done. Got a talent who wants a different configuration (the ego setup)? Easy. Give him the #3 button. Etc.
Did I mentuion, for feature - vs - featrure, the digital stuff is cheaper, too.
Does thie make me a new wave technocrat? I dunno, I started doing this in 1962 or so, been doing it ever since. I miss very little of the good ol'; daze.

 

[FFoti1]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

Well, i have to say thx for the digital education from Frank and Bob.
Beyond the answers which almost convinced me, i thing digital has 2 good lawyers.

However, beyond the technical explanations which I got and I will learn something from it, I start to believe what David said at the end. Digital. It's a different world from analog.
It sure is, and maybe my mistake is that i tried to search things about it from the technical side.
Seems to be wrong  After working over 2 decades in lots of stations at my area, some of these are still No1 in there market, AC, TOP40, URBAN ROCK even Talk radio formats etc, and being one of those who are standing in front of a console and behind the mic also, i try to see it maybe from a different angle.

I always believed that simplicity is the mother of success.

So the digital world seems for me still more complicated then analog was in the past. I am talking about the total environment of course in a station, with PCs, servers, automation software etc and how this is affecting the stations stuff and after that the listeners in a way. From the needed UPS almost anywhere, as Frank said  to anything else.

Maybe digital will be in 30 years like analog seems to be right know.

Radiotoday,

Not sure if your comment about being a lawyer is a compliment or not.

Actually, I do understand what you're saying. If I may reflect about 25 years or so. The PC was beginning to invade the radio station. (I was still a C.E. at the time.) I remember how all my friends and colleagues were so intrigued by it. All of them said I must have one. Now, this was long before commercially available CAD programs, SPICE, and programs that would assist me in my engineering duties. I was not impressed. I felt tat it was not much more than a glorified typewriter, because it could produce nice letters, memos, and get our Arbitron information much faster. Oh yeah, and play games. Big whoop in my mind.

I saw the PC as an eventual tool, if I could do my work better, and more efficiently. Well, a few later, all of my concerns were eliminated, and now I can't live without a PC. Just about everything in my day is connected to it. Point of this, is that I was like you are feeling now. I was trying...hard...to see the techno advantages of the PC, and in doing so got lost in the trees, when I should have been looking at the forest.

Digital is a different world, and you can make it easy, or hard...your choice. BTW: Analog can easy as well as hard too. It is different in that there is much more we can do than we could in the analog realm. If there were barriers to be broken in the audio/broadcast industry using analog tech, we would do so. But, that's not the case. Digital, by its nature offers so much more.

I think the complication issues you mention has more to do with getting all devices in a facility "talking" and "working" together. That is happening. Look at our sister tech company Axia. They pioneered the ability of linear audio over IP...AND...that same signal contains all control, ancillary data, and graphics. All on one ethernet cable. How cool is that? Next, we'll have the broadcast infrastructure connected together using something like Livewire. Plug-N-Play from end-to-end. That's closer than you might think. But, I understand, that in the meantime, there are situations where the tech protocols are not the same, and a bit more understanding is required.

BUT...think back, there was a time, in the analog world, where we had issues like this too, although on a different technical level. Please don't forget that technology is constantly evolving, and it's our own personal life-challenges to keep up with it.

You feel that "maybe digital will be in 30 years, where analog is now." Respectfully, I disagree. Digital blew past where analog is now, quite a few years ago.

-Frank Foti

 

[cgould]

Re: To be (digital), or not to be, that is the question. ( to Frank and Bob mayb

Radiotoday --

It's easy to go about life without the need for digital gear in a stand-alone station type environment at the moment, but times are catching up with those types of facilities...

I took a new job at a non-com station near my home almost a couple of months ago. Aside from the on-air audio processor, and Enco system, they are a stand-alone, all analog operation. They are currently feeling the need for more digital doo-dads as they are unable to scroll current song / title info to radios on RDS, will be converting to HD Radio soon to add a second program channel, add info to the streaming audio feeds (more digital doo-dads), etc.

There's a lot that goes on here that is a royal pain to do, and I think back to the all digital plant I put together for CBS / Cleveland, and how effortless so many things are to do in that type of plant that takes them quite some time to set up for, and tear down from here.

Fortunately, I can watch "from the cheap seats", as I am not the Engineer .

You never fully appreciate how convenient and easy digital plants make life until you have it, and go back to analog again!

Regards,
-Cornelius

 

[radiotoday]

Well,

Frank said something about the Pcs which reminds me myself at the end of the 80s and the start of the 90s how much i hated the... Pcs. I thought that these are the devils weapons. ???

( thank God that I never worked in a religious format oriented radio station

I thought actually that this way i would lose my job somehow, just like the the robots did it in the middle of the 60s. I was wrong. The robots didn’t still the jobs away. They brought the product to another level. Still to be honest even if i work in front of a screen right know, yes i would be happy if at the input from each channel at any broadcast console would be per example a cart machine from sonifex ( i loved those ) or a turntable instead of a hard disc.

Also I would prefer if selector and music master wouldn’t exist , even if I might would lose my job know.

However its true. Digital environment is the reality from our days and we cant do anything about it.
Still it’s a too much automated radio world in my eyes.

And I don’t know at which sort of future this digital reality will drive us.