which one is beter Stereomaxx or orban 222a

[powerlinerfm]

I can buy 2 unit's , The stereomaxx and the orban which is the best buy ?

 

[NE Miss Radio]

I presume you mean one of the two units. It depends on which sounds better for your need. To me, the Orban is more "musical" and the MAXX is "bigger." Also, to me, the MAXX if overdone can make your station sound like a concrete domed stadium concert. My personal taste leans to the Orban. If possible try to get a demo unit and check them out for yourself. By the way, if you need "brightness" too, why not try out an Aphex Aural Enhancer, it also helps the image a bit, too. Some of the Aphex units also have a bass processor. Very affordable on EBay or one of the many discounters with catalogs or online.

And don't forget that if you are upgrading processing in the near future, lots of the digital processors have that function on board.

Now, to send the "real" engineers screaming to the doctor covering their ears and screaming "no, no, no"--if you're really on a shoestring try out one of the Behringer UltraFex or DualFex processors. The surround works fine, and the bass processor is good if you need that. I won't endorse the enhancer/exciter on it. I much prefer the Aphex Aural Enhancer for that. But the Behringer is super cheap.

 

[ghattaway]

Stereomaxx has a much more audible effect on the audio than the 222. Just be sure you have good system bandwidth from the stereo generator to the antenna, or you can suffer serious multipath problems if you get agressive with the settings.

 

[littlejohn]

And remember, even if the transmission system is flat, >if< you have areas of multipath in your coverage area, stereo enhancement >will< make them increase. For a quick n dirty measurement, drive through your worst area of multipath, noting where the phenomenon begins and where it ends. Then stick the enhancer inline, crank it, and repeat the drive, same car, same weather, same time of day. Crank the enhancer until you notice an increase in the multipath. This is the noticeable threshold. Decide whether the effect is worth the notice or not, and proceed accordingly. The two boxes you list have different sounds, and the ones I've tried in complete proc amps from both Orban and Foti sound different yet. Get the one you or your program folks like, it's a part of your 'stationality' and you should treat it as that.

 

[jboydingram]

Why do discussions on this board go to such subjective subjects
where there are no clear answers...wouldn't it be better if we addressed more pertinent problems of engineering rather that who thinks what sounds best? I would like to hear from the unspoken masses...thanks...JBI

 

[RadioMan203]

I don't know about the Orban unit, but the Stereomaxx has been discontinued for some years now. While I rebuilt a power supply for one I know that MSI had a limited supply of spare parts for these units so keep that in mind when deciding on what one to purchase.

 

[ElCheapo]

I e-mailed Bob Orban a while back asking about the viability of using an Optimod PC 1100 in front of an 8200 specifically to take advantage of its 8500-like AGC and stereo enhancement - the idea being to turn off the 8200 AGC. I was curious about latency when using just these features on the card.

He told me that using just these features the latency wouldn't be bad and probably wouldn't disturb the talent at all.

He also said Orban has stopped manufacturing the 222A and to get one now if you want one. They have some new old stock left but there won't be any more made.

Personally, I'd opt for the 1100 route if stereo enhancement is all you're looking for and have an old PC to spare. It's cheaper than the 222A and if nothing else, you get a better AGC than the 8200 to boot. I plan to try this myself when budget season gets here.

 

[littlejohn]

Ol' J. Boyd asks:

Why do discussions on this board go to such subjective subjects
where there are no clear answers...wouldn't it be better if we addressed more pertinent problems of engineering rather that who thinks what sounds best? I would like to hear from the unspoken masses...thanks...JBI

I see two answers. The first is, these are often problems brought to the engineer, and we're expected to provide an answer whether it's a subjective question or not. After all, they're paying us for the answers. So, when the answer is subjective, I'd personally like a lot of opinions as to what does which better than whom. I can then sort them and use those I consider credible to help me arrive at an answer. Likewise, I don't mind sharing my experience(s) with various things when someone asks.

The second answer is fairly simple - put up those pertinent questions for discussion. I'm sure the spoken and unspoken masses will respond.

Fair enough??

 

[wgliradio]

Buy an Ariane. Best stereo enhancement and, because it is wrapped into the AGC, it is very accurate and accents when you need it.

 

[zach_morton]

I agree...you could debate until the moon turns blue about which processor sounds best, because the sound of any chain is subjective to the person hearing it.

 

[jboydingram]

ole' J. Boyd here...let's see what they say...and Thanks...JBI

 

[mikl73]

Either way I enjoy reading these subjective posts....

You guys would be shocked how great J Boyds 50kw'er sounds with a 1/4 of the processing most stations employ. It puts most major market stations to shame.

 

[ghattaway]

That's not surprising for 2 reasons- first, JBoyd is a sharp guy, and most importantly, less really does sound better. I know of no one who scans the dial looking for the loudest station (excepting a few misguided programmers)...but I know LOTS of folks who have turned to CD's and cassettes 'cause their favorite -in your face loud, grungy, squarewave high end- station really grates on their nerves after a few minutes.

 

[ElCheapo]

That's not surprising for 2 reasons- first, JBoyd is a sharp guy, and most importantly, less really does sound better. I know of no one who scans the dial looking for the loudest station (excepting a few misguided programmers)...but I know LOTS of folks who have turned to CD's and cassettes 'cause their favorite -in your face loud, grungy, squarewave high end- station really grates on their nerves after a few minutes.

If that's true, why do the most heavily processed stations win so frequently?

Personally, I don't think ultimate loudness is the reason - especially in the era of pushbutton digital tuning - but I do believe having an exciting sound that appears larger than life does contribute to the success of a station - and that's what spatial expanders are all about. These days, that's one of the ways you can set yourself apart from XM and iPods.

I know quite a few people myself. I've talked to several though that claim to not use radio anymore because we play "too many commercials" and "the DJs talk too much." I can't remember ever talking to a single one that said they turned to an alternative medium because radio didn't sound good.

The average American isn't a golden-eared audiophile. The average American fueled the Napster era where low bitrate MP3s with suspect coding almost killed the recording industry.

 

[ghattaway]

I suspect that if one polled ALL music listeners, and not just radio listeners, they might be shocked by the results. Heavily processed radio does rate highly among radio listeners, but what choice do they really have? I'd dare say that most listeners under 25 have never heard a station with more than 3db of dynamic range. My point is that a lot of folks have grown tired of squarewave audio and have turned to other delivery vehicles, where dynamic range is still available. If larger-then-life, smashed, flat-topped audio is so grand, then why do these folks carry $$$$$ worth of CD's around in thier cars...with the very same music on them the radio stations are playing?

 

[ElCheapo]

I suspect that if one polled ALL music listeners, and not just radio listeners, they might be shocked by the results. Heavily processed radio does rate highly among radio listeners, but what choice do they really have? I'd dare say that most listeners under 25 have never heard a station with more than 3db of dynamic range. My point is that a lot of folks have grown tired of squarewave audio and have turned to other delivery vehicles, where dynamic range is still available. If larger-then-life, smashed, flat-topped audio is so grand, then why do these folks carry $$$$$ worth of CD's around in thier cars...with the very same music on them the radio stations are playing?

If people are listening to any CD of popular music released in the last 5 years they're going to be listening to clipped audio regardless. Much to the chagrin of both Bob Orban and Frank Foti, the labels don't release anything that's not hard limited and clipped these days. I wonder why that is... Do you suppose it could be because people like it better that way? Surely it's not just to make it a bit louder in record stores - because there are hardly any record stores left!

Since you brought up cars, that's one of the very best reasons for heavy processing. Not everyone drives a Lexus. If you're listening to music with lots of dynamic range (like many of my favorite 80s tracks) in an average vehicle, you have two choices - crank it up until it's annoyingly loud or lose half of it to road noise. Yet another reason why heavily processed stations are popular. Life happens with ambient noise - radio compensates for that.

 

[ghattaway]

So we agree to disagree. I'll concede this much- many years ago, when highly processed FM was just beginning to happen, I used to think like you. Sure - ANY digital recording medium requires peak limiting to avoid distortion, but I challenge you to show me any recording studio that uses an Omnia(insert this week's version here) set to maximum loud in the mastering chain...even you must admit that a song played on your car CD player does not sound at all like the very same song on the typical radio station.
The comment about everyone not driving a Lexus is irrelevant- most all modern day cars are quite comfortable, and have minimal amounts of road noise transmitted to the passenger area. BTW, you'll see just as many CD's on the seats of those Lexuses! And any station that processes solely for benefit of a mobile audience is making a serious error in judging the listening habits of a typical listener.

We could joust this issue for weeks on end, but it would be pointless. I welcome you to keep pumpin' out the squarewaves, and watch your TSL continue to slide.

 

[ElCheapo]

So we agree to disagree. I'll concede this much- many years ago, when highly processed FM was just beginning to happen, I used to think like you. Sure - ANY digital recording medium requires peak limiting to avoid distortion, but I challenge you to show me any recording studio that uses an Omnia(insert this week's version here) set to maximum loud in the mastering chain...even you must admit that a song played on your car CD player does not sound at all like the very same song on the typical radio station.
The comment about everyone not driving a Lexus is irrelevant- most all modern day cars are quite comfortable, and have minimal amounts of road noise transmitted to the passenger area. BTW, you'll see just as many CD's on the seats of those Lexuses! And any station that processes solely for benefit of a mobile audience is making a serious error in judging the listening habits of a typical listener.

We could joust this issue for weeks on end, but it would be pointless. I welcome you to keep pumpin' out the squarewaves, and watch your TSL continue to slide.

I don't know what they use to hammer the audio in recording studios these days - probably plug ins for ProTools for the most part - but the hard limiting is there and clearly evident if you take a look at the audio waveform in any type of editor. If you record the off-air signal of a typical FM, the density is about the same - which is yet another reason dense processing is necessary. On a typical hot AC for example, the age of the music library cuts would span 20 years or more. If it was presented with little to no processing, radio would see the same problem as TV - some of today's hard limited songs and spots would effectively blast the listener out when paired back to back with a cut from the 80s or early 90s that was mastered with a lot of dynamic range.

Most radio listening in towns of any size does happen in vehicles - typically the number is around 70% - so yes, in-car listening is very relevant. Many of the heaviest users of radio are driving delivery trucks, work trucks and industrial vehicles - I live in a very blue collar area and know this is true here in particular. Smokers drive their otherwise quiet cars with the windows cracked.

Beyond that, you have to consider the other 30% of radio use. How many offices are dead quiet? I know ours isn't. What about restaurants? How about shops and warehouses? I'm not talking about a sparsely populated area of Northern Mississippi - I'm talking about large metropolitan areas here.

With the possible exception of classical listeners, most radio listening is done passively and as a background activity and on radios with speakers and tuners of questionable quality that wouldn't be able to accurately reproduce the full dynamic and spectral range of some source material anyway.

Then there's the issue of multipath. Dense program material helps mask multipath problems.

If radio as an industry were to process for wide dynamic range, our TSL would slide. Your apparent notion that most radio listening takes place in pristine listening environments, immune from noise pollution is simply incorrect.

 

[ghattaway]

'Tis often said that debate is a healthy thing, but debate just for the sake of debate is a waste of time. I believe this discussion has outlived it's usefulness. We agree to disagree.

 

[gtomas]

I'll just add that the reasoning for heavy processing is high ambient noise is pretty poor. Most of the dynamic range reduction you get is from AGC, compression and limiting. A few extra dBs you get from heavy clipping is for loudness purposes when comparing stations only and has nothing to do with getting a high audio average level. 1 or 2 dBs higher signal to noise ratio really makes no difference in terms of audio getting drowned by the noise.

And the claim that in situations where there's high ambient noise you can't help yourself by raising volume or that you will be irritated by that, but instead you need to clip and flat top your audio and that'll be better (and won't irritate listeners) is a poor argument as well.

I won't even address the "betterment" of multipath problem...


Regards,
Goran Tomas