Two new Omnia.One presets

[cgould]

Just posted two new Omnia.One specialty presets on my website www.cgould.com.

noWBAGCs and CG Pure. In both presets, I shut off the multiband AGC's to allow the use of the processor on formats where the multiband AGC action may not be needed or wanted.

CGPure is tuned around classical music, and provides nice but natural loudness, and "unsquashed" sounding.

That "squashed" sound drives me nuts on classical over the air radio. I realize Classical music format operators need to compete on the radio loudness space, so I made this preset as an alternative to the other solutions.

noMBAGCs is tweaked around NPR Talks shows where natural but controlled dialog levels are desired.

Don't try these presets for pop music formats if you want loudness. They're designed around the RMS energy of the formats listed above.

Enjoy!

-C

 

[The F Mister]

Cornelius,

If you would be willing to share, what are the key "underwater" changes in your CHR preset opposed to the factory CHR preset of the One?

Thnx.
-F

 

[RealityCheckr]

I am guessing, but I strongly suspect they involve things that stretch the ability to describe using usual processor terminology. Even were one familiar with one DSP processor's internal vocabulary it would not translate to any other processors.

This is one of the reasons that it can take a long time to generate new presets.

I admit I would like to here the answer myself, but I am dubious we will learn much.

good luck !

Cornelius,

If you would be willing to share, what are the key "underwater" changes in your CHR preset opposed to the factory CHR preset of the One?

Thnx.
-F

 

[cgould]

Cornelius,

If you would be willing to share, what are the key "underwater" changes in your CHR preset opposed to the factory CHR preset of the One?

Thnx.
-F

The changes I make involve changing the character of the AGC and Limiter sections of the processor by tuning things quite differently. As RealityCheckr stated, it's kind of hard to describe as I am not changing user controls to make all this happen. The changes I make not only changes the overall sound, they also change the way the user controls work...so it's sort of like like getting a different processor but using the same hardware...

It's one of the things I've always loved about the Omnia's. I can get in and change stuff around and not be stuck with the sound you get being what you get. ;D

-C

 

[The F Mister]

Okay, me too am glad you have that ability since its a much better (or should I say different) starting point than the factory preset. So if I understand it right. You not only change existing values that are not visible in the gui but incorporate your own algorithms and thereby making the processor behave substantially different?

 

[FFoti1]

Okay, me too am glad you have that ability since its a much better (or should I say different) starting point than the factory preset. So if I understand it right. You not only change existing values that are not visible in the gui but incorporate your own algorithms and thereby making the processor behave substantially different?

No. The algorithms are the same.

-Frank Foti

 

[wgliradio]

Corny has made the One sound wonderful. It's a much much better box with his presets, it has punch.

When I reviewed it for Radio Guide in late 2007, I lamented that the box didn't have enough flavor as one of the negatives. At the time, most of my basis was comparing it to the Omnia 3 Turbo (which I have and is a nightmare) and the DSP-X, which was the entry level winner, for me, at the time.

The ONE has now changed that, although I am going to be testing new software for the DSP-Mini.... the battle continues!

 

[RealityCheckr]

So is more like programming an engine control system versus tweaking the mixture and idle screw on a carburetor? One anyone can adjust and understand the results - the other requires intimate understanding of the algorithms...

Did I get it right?

Okay, me too am glad you have that ability since its a much better (or should I say different) starting point than the factory preset. So if I understand it right. You not only change existing values that are not visible in the gui but incorporate your own algorithms and thereby making the processor behave substantially different?

No. The algorithms are the same.

-Frank Foti

 

[cgould]

Okay, me too am glad you have that ability since its a much better (or should I say different) starting point than the factory preset. So if I understand it right. You not only change existing values that are not visible in the gui but incorporate your own algorithms and thereby making the processor behave substantially different?

No. The algorithms are the same.

-Frank Foti

Yes. No change in the algorithms themselves.

I guess the best analogy would be going into an analog processor, say, an 8100, and changing the values of the gain control circuit components (but not changing the actual circuit layout) to yield an entirely different sound - a different characteristic from what you would normally get from the unit with the default factory part values.

Someone from a competing station could then come in and write down the knob settings to try to duplicate the sound you have, but without knowing the internal mods, there will be no way they could duplicate the sound.

Does that make it clearer?

-C

 

[The F Mister]

Yes I understand that part. But its still not really clear to me how you've build up your preset. If I see a preset I can scroll down true the settings and understand how it sounds and compare it to another. In your presets there is something invisible different making the comparison a bit harder. That on itself is not even a problem but I would like to know (learn) how you approached on changing this preset whether its "under the lit" tweaking or not. I guess that you set yourself a goal before you start, know from that point what do you do? When you are working on a competitive CHR preset what are the key points to look after? You must be unhappy with the factory tools provided to the end-users so what is it you change under the lit when you have the ability? Change certain AGC settings, crossovers, clipper behavior, that stuff?

 

[cgould]

I guess that you set yourself a goal before you start, know from that point what do you do? When you are working on a competitive CHR preset what are the key points to look after? You must be unhappy with the factory tools provided to the end-users so what is it you change under the lit when you have the ability? Change certain AGC settings, crossovers, clipper behavior, that stuff?

It's not that I'm unhappy with the factory presets as they are...it's more of a case where I have an idea of the sound I want to achieve, and if I can't reach it with the factory presets, I go under the hood and "goose things along" to get the results I want. In this case, I was looking to create a difference in the overall feel of the processor from a DJ perspective. Changes in how it reacts to level changes, hot mike talkovers, etc.

This is one of the things I love about Omnia processors...we can totally change the personality of the boxes at will without any other changes other than to load up a preset file.

Now, If I were working at a radio group, this would be my secret weapon against competitors who do not have the ability to mod their digital processors.

In fact, CBS / Cleveland still has several customized Omnia6 presets from when I was there...what they're doing with them is anyone guess now that I'm long gone.

Anyway, the CG Omnia presets features changes are across the board...different operating ratios, gating speeds, hidden time constant tweaks, etc.

If you haven't been through the old days of prisms and 8100's under loudness wars conditions, and had to go in with the soldering iron, and a hand full of resistors and caps and change things to gain a competitive edge then I'm not sure how else to explain it to ya.

Just give them a try and see what your ears tell you!

These presets also incorporates feedback from people using my variants as well. In fact, I have a new one in the works to finish when time permits that features lots of input from folks like Mike in NYC and a few others. That new one has nice punch.

-C

 

[The F Mister]

Ok, I understand what you are saying. Even your analogy towards the "old soldering days"
Now my last question. Does it affect the preset when you set it up for 50uS or 75uS? My guess would be yes. I find them to sound different when I set it to 50uS pre- and de-emphasis than 75uS. Or is it me fooling myself?

 

[cgould]

Ok, I understand what you are saying. Even your analogy towards the "old soldering days"
Now my last question. Does it affect the preset when you set it up for 50uS or 75uS? My guess would be yes. I find them to sound different when I set it to 50uS pre- and de-emphasis than 75uS. Or is it me fooling myself?

What changes is how hard the high frequencies are hitting the final clipper system. Since the multiband limiters are *before* pre-emphasis, it will not change the tonal characteristics of the high frequency limiters, but it will make a difference in how "mashed" the high end sounds.

50uS sounds much nicer (more natural) -but over here in the US, you risk sounding a bit duller. I'm not sure how noticeable that will be these days. It's not like the highs aren't being buried and pushed down already from the typical loudness settings used in U.S. radio today. Besides, just try to find a radio with accurate 75uS de-emphasis on the audio output these days.

-Cornelius

 

[The F Mister]

Well that would explain it. I like the artifacts (to certain extend) of clipped audio and I'm based in europe so I've set pre-emp for 50uS. If you already push the clippers with 50uS it sure gets more noticable with 75uS.