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

[knowbetter]

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

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

Regards,
-Cornelius

I think that simply put, digital...err digital processors, transmitters, plants, components, etc...are new and interesting pieces of the technology puzzle. I separated them, to me, Digital as a common term is a bit too broad.

For example, I still love the sound of an oldies station, sounding like an oldies station. To my old ears, that's single band audio, so the songs retain the original mix, something that multiband, but especially digital processors with multiband audio will change radically. I think a processor is simply a matter of use, either analog or digital, and the learning curve just hasn't completely caught on. I do think a song played on the radio should sound something like it does when you listen at home, or on your own equipment. To me, that is the best audio processing. Process it to transmit well, sound great, but don't over process it into a different product!

Digital Transmitters and Plants!! Love em, since they are simpler to build and maintain, and reconfigure, which unfortunately is a part of todays multi station plants. Cheaper too, on a lot of levels. It's does help not to be afraid of computers, though <grin>

Components, I don't know...sorta loved room sized computers myself <lol)

 

[CalifZeke]

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

For example, I still love the sound of an oldies station, sounding like an oldies station. To my old ears, that's single band audio, so the songs retain the original mix, something that multiband, but especially digital processors with multiband audio will change radically. I think a processor is simply a matter of use, either analog or digital, and the learning curve just hasn't completely caught on. I do think a song played on the radio should sound something like it does when you listen at home, or on your own equipment. To me, that is the best audio processing. Process it to transmit well, sound great, but don't over process it into a different product!

Huh, the learning curve hasn't caught on? More like the industry has dumbed down! We've had multiband audio processing since the 1970's, and there WERE plenty of engineers who knew how to make processors sing. Today, we have young excuse ladden guys who poke back at the product, when THEY can't make it sound good, and all the while acting as self-proclaimed gurus. Therein lies the problem.

 

[RealityCheckr]

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

The above Reality Check brought to you by CalifZeke.

Hear hear!

 

[RealityCheckr]

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

You are correct, there is an obscene amount of criticism of the Omnirban boxes.

I hate to say it, but I strongly suspect the main reason Bob and Frank hang out hear is to make sure their products don't go un-defended by self-appointed experts.

Quite different from most other forums where the degree of professionalism is far greater. :'(

 

[CalifZeke]

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

Am I alone in observing that anyone on this board who expresses criticism of a certain brand of audio processor (beginning with the letter "O") gets swiftboated? :-\

What you feel is criticism, others feel is negative bias due to those posters who lack experience and know-how of what they are dealing with. There's a huge difference in criticizing due to an actual fault in a product, and criticizing to cover up one's lack of ability. If these so-called issues were real, then the products that are being diss-cussed, wouldn't be as successful as they are.

 

[cgould]

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

Anyone who criticizes any audio processor has someone who will chime in with the opposite opinion.

I say analog boxes (in particular the 8100 and all its combinations) are outdated, many others jump in to tell me the opposite is true.

Someone says DSP boxes are no good for reasons XY and Z, and I chime in to say the opposite is true.

Frank will chime in, and Bob Orban will occasionally chime in too...though most folks on this board are Orban fans, so Bob may not need to chime in very much

Doesn't look like there is any particular slant going on...if anything it's very pro Orban...but you don;t see me complaining about it ;D.

I work with both processors in all forms, so I could care less what people like...I just chime in when I feel a certain critique is not true...and I'd do the same thing if someone mis-characterized a "weakness" with the other "O" product too!

-C

 

[CalifZeke]

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

-C

You're being too kind. After lurking for months, and then becoming vocal, it's quite obvious that most of these posters don't know enough. That doesn't seem to stop their egos from offering self-serving comments intended on hurting others. The lack of respect to others who have walked the road long before them is appalling.

 

[cgould]

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

-C

You're being too kind.

Yeah...Maybe so!

Friends who have known me for a long time like to refer to me as "Switzerland". LOL

-C

 

[stace]

To CalifZeke

Reading through the history of your posting it's obvious which side of the 'O' fence you sit. Thats great!

I assume by your comments you're one of the most experienced audio processing engineers that visit this board. I am not, and have alot to learn from people like you.

What frustrates me about your posts however is you point out a lack of professionalism and respect to manufacturers and experienced engineers here when you do the same.

you say
.

-C
You're being too kind. After lurking for months, and then becoming vocal, it's quite obvious that most of these posters don't know enough. That doesn't seem to stop their egos from offering self-serving comments intended on hurting others. The lack of respect to others who have walked the road long before them is appalling.

but you also say

"Looks like Bob brought his flyswatter. He must have woke up from his nap. Guess if Omnia wanted to be nasty, they'd have had the orban guy flubby, dull, packed up, and possess that edgy, steely, grindy clippy sound they are known for."

Is this fact, or just hate for Orbans? I've never come across the optinion that Optmod is 'edgy, grindy, and clippy'.

In the history of your posts you have never provided anything usefull to the conversation, only personal attacks on people you say haven't got a clue.

Why the hypocracy?

 

[RealityCheckr]

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

ON the "clips" thread I recently Opined that the Orban stuff tends to send scritchy scratchy. But it does not have the "treble ducking" effect.

That is a matter of style. Personally I want clean treble whenever I can get it, and if the processor has to duck it on really difficult material in order to comply with the pre-emphasis curve that is fine by me versus the sandpaper effect.

My wife has good taste in audio, but does not have much of a vocabulary for it. I have voiced my opinions about scritch scratch bass to her in the car and now she finds it annoying.

I supposed she might find treble ducking annoying too if I told her about it, but I don't plan on doing so

I was very proud of her, she heard, and pointed out a midrange driver rattle in my speakers ... now I have to fix it :-\

 

[CalifZeke]

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

In the history of your posts you have never provided anything usefull to the conversation, only personal attacks on people you say haven't got a clue.

Why the hypocracy?

If you haven't got a clue, then be quiet and listen, instead of running off at the mouth.

The industry has dumbed itself down. Just because I don't agree with the young excuse ladden, who act like self-proclaimed gurus, doesn't make me the bad guy. Yes, I've been in the industry quite a long time. I took the time to listen and learn from the sages that came before. Took the lessons they gave, and expanded upon those. Sometimes changes were made *after* listening, learning, and trying. Sometimes nothing changed at all. Some old school methods are fine, just as they are. Not so today. Very little respect for those who've already been there. The young dillutionists of grandeur self-profess about topics they should still be learning about. Audio processing is definitely one of them.

 

[RealityCheckr]

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

Zeke,

As they say, "everyone is entitled to an opinion". What rarely gets said is that "some people are more entitled to their opinion than others".

It is pretty clear from your posts that not only are you an old curmudgeon , but that you know what you are talking about based on experience.

If you think it is bad watching these people mouthing off, you should see what it is like for the manufacturers. I have run across a number of cases where the main skills an "engineer" has is pointing fingers at vendors. Usually it plays out something like this: They are criticised for their sound, so they recommend an expensive processor to cure it. Of course if the problem is elsewhere, they still won't sound good and that is where the finger pointing starts. Next thing is that the manufacturer gets a call from the regional VP about "unresolved problems" with their gear.

Now, to be fair, the radio groups have pushed many fine engineers out of the industry and when they can't find one promote some kid from production to be station "engineer". Not very fair to the kid, and very bad for the industry as a whole.

I hope you have the opportunity to pass along your knowledge Zeke, as it is needed!

 

[radioinfo]

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

As they say, "everyone is entitled to an opinion". What rarely gets said is that "some people are more entitled to their opinion than others".

Of course, the Program Director is the one who is the most entitled to his opinion, even if he knows less about audio processing than a teenage hobbyist!

 

[CalifZeke]

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

Of course, the Program Director is the one who is the most entitled to his opinion, even if he knows less about audio processing than a teenage hobbyist!

Based upon those teenage hobbyist comments on this board, that PD is farther along. Why? Because his concern is overall performance. Not one segment of one song like those teeny bopper, self-professed, processing gurus here carry on about.

 

[LA_Guy]

My $0.02....

I have been reading this and decided to chime in. I have been a broadcast engineer for a long time and am quite opinionated (perhaps TOO opinionated-I'm told that I am on the 'do not hire' lists of most of the big consolidators mainly because of my past opinions). In any case, there has always been a need to process audio. The need for AM is self evident-the higher the modulation is, the further the station goes, and the better it gets over man made interference. For FM, there are valid reasons too-the need to extend range in weak signal areas (where the station is on the edge of receiver limiting), the need to overcome road noise in cars, and the fact that a processed signal can overcome some forms of multipath. These are all needs based upon the physics of the mediums involved. The other reason is taste. Most stations process audio for this reason. They are seeking a certain 'sound'. Many know what sound they want. Many select their sound based upon formats. Many don't even know why they WANT a certain sound, except that "Kxxx has it and they're #1".

I personally think that some of these reasons are suspect, but I realize that others might quite validly disagree-so let's say all the above are valid.

In the past, analog processors were all you could get. Problem is, it's difficult to make many of the specialized things happen in analog that you can do with DSP (digital). Also, it's difficult to reproduce a particular 'sound' among all your stations with analog-but it's a SNAP with digital. First we had McProgramming-and now with DSP we can also have McProcessing. This is one of the big reasons that DSP based processors are so popular among the big consolidators.
I personally like the sound of analog, and enjoy rebuilding and updating older analog stuff to make it sound better. That said, I also believe the future is digital simply because of the power it gives you for the dollar you have to pay. As an example, right now I'm listening to TV audio through a 15 watt per channel stereo class D audio amplifier based upon the Tripath TA2024 audio chip. This amp cost me 15 dollars shipped on ebay, is 80% efficient and does not even have a heat sink, yet it sounds better then any other analog amp I have (and that's quite a few). This level of performance cost 1000 bucks a couple of years ago, but it's 15 dollars shipped now! Same is true with the value that DSP gives to audio processors.

I also believe that processing's physical reasons for existing will not be as important in the future. Like it or not, full digital audio transmission is right around the corner (and I'm not limiting my statements to IBOC-the Internet will be in cars within a decade). Digital transmission will not need processing to overcome noise in the transmission media, multipath, etc. It will still be needed for overcoming noise in cars and other places however, and probably also due to taste.

One problem I see that might be on the horizon is how processing affects codecs that use perceptual coding. How will the codec respond to multi band highly processed audio? The encoders work based on certain quirks of human hearing. How does processing screw these up? Anyone know? I sure don't


Finally, I hope that the future is allowed to happen without the 'big guy's' greed slowing it down or stopping it. We've already had this awful IBOC (IBAC?) foisted upon us and it ain't pretty. Maybe they have learned their lesson on this one. Or maybe I just dug my employment grave deeper LOL! (and wink @ Jeff and Steve).

-D

 

[littlejohn]

Now we're on the philosophy of processing . Try this - If you can build some rapport with the programmer, why not let him set the proc box? After all, it's his butt which will be unemployed if nobody listens to his product, not mine. I try to get a couple of concepts across to them, and let them run with it. The first is, none of their listeners except maybe their competitor has a mod meter. I normally cover it up while they're playing. If one can ever show me some research showing that a significant percentage of listeners are actually staring at a meter insteasd of exercising their ears, I'll worry over the meter. Otherwise, it's an auditory phenomenon, let's work it out by listening to it. The second is, whatever we end up with, let's be agreed we're going to back off it about a little bit, and then we're gonna listen critically for three days minimum. We'll reconvene thereafter and make tweaks. AFter that, "Here, this knob, listen to what it does. Heres that knob, listen to what it does. Etc." An added benefit of this approachis, it gets the person responsible listening to production values, jock operations, and other stuff, most of which makes a hell of a lot more difference in how your operation sounds than the proc box. After all, you can fix the limiting, the program guy has to fix the sloppy spots.
Then, I usually remind them, there's nothing exclusive here. Everything we do on - air >EXCEPT< what the jock says how and when is covered by someone else in the market. Get a focus on what your operation can do originally, and you have a focus on what will set it above.
Them as buys into the concept usually do well. Them as donm't usually don't last anyhow... "I was here when you got here, I'll be here when you're not here....".Try it, and for one last concept, make the program guy watch his yopungest female demo cell. If it starts to trend down, he might want to revisit the processing, cos the girls will leave over bad sound first.

 

[RealityCheckr]

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

Littlejohn - I like your approach.

LA Guy - Was that Tripath amp a kit or assembled? Which one? I am looking for a reasonable source for Tripath amps.

Thanks

 

[LA_Guy]

Assembled...

That was for an assembled board.

Here's one at their buy it now price: http://cgi.ebay.com/2-15-watt-4ohm-...1353024QQihZ013QQcategoryZ39783QQcmdZViewItem

I paid 9.99 on auction a few weeks ago (plus 5 dollars shipping).

You have to make a few small mods. Information here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112395&perpage=25&pagenumber=6

Specifically: remove C3 and C24 (roll off highs) and R3 and R16 (cause excessive DC offset). You should also put a 1-2 uf film cap across C13 and C21.

 

[gtomas]

Re: My $0.02....

One problem I see that might be on the horizon is how processing affects codecs that use perceptual coding. How will the codec respond to multi band highly processed audio? The encoders work based on certain quirks of human hearing. How does processing screw these up? Anyone know? I sure don't

Excellent questions Dana and questions that will be even more important in the future as broadcasters more and more move to digital audio transmissions. Hopefully those transmissions will also increase in bandwidth as technology grows, therefore relaxing the requirements for lossy coding (and therefore induced artifacts). Which will probably be more true for Internet broadcasting (web streaming) rather than fixed over-the-air systems for digital broadcasting and perhaps one of the reasons I also feel web streaming will take over in the future once it goes mobile. Either WiFi or GSM/UMTS/3G networks or something else...

I find the field of investigating how dynamics processing affects perceptual coding very interesting (and like I said, very important). There are some well known facts like codec overshoot (especially with SBR based codecs) that increases with more aggressive dynamics processing, the various aspects of codec sensitivity to high-end content (in terms of increased artifacts) and some hinted links between processor induced IMD and artifacts. I quickly summarized those effects in the poster I made for last year's European AES convention (http://www.gorantomas.com/articles/AES_poster.pdf)

It also appears that increased aggressiveness of dynamics processing negatively affects perceptual coding, IOW the codec artifacts increase as you push the processing harder. I've done a little listening test which shows this to be true (http://www.gorantomas.com/articles/Aggressive_dynamics_processing.pdf). I can't say it's rock solid evidence (being based on one song, one preset, etc) but I would definitely advise against using aggressive processing for coded audio.

I guess it's also one more reason not to knock the life out of music (audio) with heavy processing in quest for ever more loudness


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[biamp]

You can't process the "bad" out of what is bad music to begin with. I come from another techinal background entirely and am semi-retired. Helped out a a station for a friend and it turned into a more full time thing with a show and time at the board as well starting to learn the air chain thing. I won't play it on my show if it has no dynamics and the vocals are not on top of the mix. I didn't realize until I got around this business that so many stations sound so bad simply because the music is so bad and poorly produced to begin with.