All times are UTC+02:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous 110 11 12 13 1417 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:20 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:40 am
Posts: 9802
Quote:
Is it possible to use the new JSON-interface to update the RDS Radiotext? I've been playing around with the json-interface to test it, but couldn't manage to get a working url...
I think it is (and if not it should be). Am stil in Vegas so i can't look now .


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:46 am 

Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:31 pm
Posts: 49
Problem in EQ
Appears 2 times "Before Multibands"

Best regards


Attachments:
Sin título.jpg
Sin título.jpg [ 57.43 KiB | Viewed 950 times ]
Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:17 pm 

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:22 pm
Posts: 15
Quote:
Quote:
Is it possible to use the new JSON-interface to update the RDS Radiotext? I've been playing around with the json-interface to test it, but couldn't manage to get a working url...
I think it is (and if not it should be). Am stil in Vegas so i can't look now .
OK! I'm not in a hurry for the JSON-interface, so I'll wait for the documentation! Have fun in Vegas! ;)


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:40 pm 

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 243
I just wanted to ask you about the gate for the new AGC. Now you have the possibility to activate 2 bands. That is great in itself. But unfortunately there is only one gate. And so I unfortunately had to find out that the gate behaves completely different than before, if you use the two bands. I already know why, because of course the loudness for the gate changes due the channel splitting. But from my point of view it would be practical to have 2 gates. Because by the many connections between the two bands I had to state that the values in the gate are not so reliable any more. Therefore I'd like to ask you a follow-up question. What about the gates in matrix mode? Which of the channels is decisive for the gate? :roll:


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:56 pm
Posts: 3431
Current Gate in AGC is almost useless because it's before AGC. So everything about gate in AGC directly depends on input level. Also Noise Gate..

_________________
control point


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:25 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:25 am
Posts: 84
Quote:
Current Gate in AGC is almost useless because it's before AGC. So everything about gate in AGC directly depends on input level. Also Noise Gate..
Isn't that the point?. AGC's job is to put what's presented at the input to a level that everything following can work with. If the gate was set at, say, 30dB below its own output level, then got stopped after some loud passage, it could fail to open back up on something following that was at a reasonable, but low level. The opposite would be true, possibly making the gate more sensitive than intended. Your thought works if something preceding ST keeps levels within a reasonable window... like an AGC before the AGC... but I have a hunch the action would be inconsistent.

Maybe Hans could put yet another option in there (after/before), but I have a hunch it would probably work better as it is.

I assume the following compression filters do reference their action, based on input, but that window has already been narrowed by the AGC. In the case of the second multiband, it would be shortened even more by the actions of the first.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:29 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:22 pm
Posts: 248
Quote:
Quote:
Current Gate in AGC is almost useless because it's before AGC. So everything about gate in AGC directly depends on input level. Also Noise Gate..
Isn't that the point?. AGC's job is to put what's presented at the input to a level that everything following can work with. If the gate was set at, say, 30dB below its own output level, then got stopped after some loud passage, it could fail to open back up on something following that was at a reasonable, but low level. The opposite would be true, possibly making the gate more sensitive than intended. Your thought works if something preceding ST keeps levels within a reasonable window... like an AGC before the AGC... but I have a hunch the action would be inconsistent.

Maybe Hans could put yet another option in there (after/before), but I have a hunch it would probably work better as it is.

I assume the following compression filters do reference their action, based on input, but that window has already been narrowed by the AGC. In the case of the second multiband, it would be shortened even more by the actions of the first.
I've seen it implemented both ways in various broadcast products. Yes, the fear you bring up with having the gate after is a concern, as is the reduction of the effectiveness of the gate. Because the AGC can sort of slowly slide up during brief ungated portions of audio. But both approaches have their benefits, as well. I don't think there's a right or wrong way. Just different styles.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:39 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:42 am
Posts: 47
Location: France
Hi Hans. I see this on your todo list: “AES67: Add WheatNet”. Did someone experience issues using Wheatnet? What are you planning to improve?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:56 pm
Posts: 3431
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Current Gate in AGC is almost useless because it's before AGC. So everything about gate in AGC directly depends on input level. Also Noise Gate..
Isn't that the point?. AGC's job is to put what's presented at the input to a level that everything following can work with. If the gate was set at, say, 30dB below its own output level, then got stopped after some loud passage, it could fail to open back up on something following that was at a reasonable, but low level. The opposite would be true, possibly making the gate more sensitive than intended. Your thought works if something preceding ST keeps levels within a reasonable window... like an AGC before the AGC... but I have a hunch the action would be inconsistent.

Maybe Hans could put yet another option in there (after/before), but I have a hunch it would probably work better as it is.

I assume the following compression filters do reference their action, based on input, but that window has already been narrowed by the AGC. In the case of the second multiband, it would be shortened even more by the actions of the first.
I've seen it implemented both ways in various broadcast products. Yes, the fear you bring up with having the gate after is a concern, as is the reduction of the effectiveness of the gate. Because the AGC can sort of slowly slide up during brief ungated portions of audio. But both approaches have their benefits, as well. I don't think there's a right or wrong way. Just different styles.
I was thinking again.. and no, i still dont see problem with gate after AGC. But i do see one big problem when it's before.

_________________
control point


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:09 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:25 am
Posts: 84
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:


Isn't that the point?. AGC's job is to put what's presented at the input to a level that everything following can work with. If the gate was set at, say, 30dB below its own output level, then got stopped after some loud passage, it could fail to open back up on something following that was at a reasonable, but low level. The opposite would be true, possibly making the gate more sensitive than intended. Your thought works if something preceding ST keeps levels within a reasonable window... like an AGC before the AGC... but I have a hunch the action would be inconsistent.

Maybe Hans could put yet another option in there (after/before), but I have a hunch it would probably work better as it is.

I assume the following compression filters do reference their action, based on input, but that window has already been narrowed by the AGC. In the case of the second multiband, it would be shortened even more by the actions of the first.
I've seen it implemented both ways in various broadcast products. Yes, the fear you bring up with having the gate after is a concern, as is the reduction of the effectiveness of the gate. Because the AGC can sort of slowly slide up during brief ungated portions of audio. But both approaches have their benefits, as well. I don't think there's a right or wrong way. Just different styles.
I was thinking again.. and no, i still dont see problem with gate after AGC. But i do see one big problem when it's before.
I think it probably is a subjective thing.

One Idea might be to "float" the gate window, based on some kind of moving, input-related parameters, though I don't know that I've ever seen that tried.

On the other hand, in my experience as a broadcast engineer, most AGC gating issues are caused by sloppy board operation or negligent (or non-existent) recording standards. Either way, I think those problems should be corrected at the studio. If the processing gets to the point where it has to run the station, make the coffee and vacuum the carpets, it could end up not doing anything really well.

My opinion here... possibly worth only what you paid for it.

-J


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous 110 11 12 13 1417 Next

All times are UTC+02:00


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited