MrDonT, my WORD that preset IS dense!
That may actually be a bit much for me, but I have a feeling I can learn a lot from your settings. If you willing, I may ask you a few questions in PMs about some of your setting choices... just looking at the numbers, some of them seem counter-intuitive, but I'm sure you have your reasons... I look forward to learning what those are.
You mentioned that Foti never used the XT2 at Z100... I didn't know that! On one of the radio discussions boards, I had a number of engineers try and tell me the biggest stations used only the most gentle and basic of processing... HAR-HAR-HAR!!! I was there, I heard the stations, I used to drive from town to town just to listen to stations, their programming and their processing, and most stations beat the LIFE out of the music. The big markets had good sound, but many smaller markets, attempting to duplicate the loudness of the big markets, ended up crushing the music until it was almost unrecognizable.
I remember hearing about the Vigilante, based on his modifications at Z100, but never knowingly heard it on-air... I imagine it was spectacular! I was always surprised he was going with a 3-band peak limiter instead of a 6 (well, 5) band limiter, but again he obviously had his reasons, and it worked for the time.
I bet the Aural Exciter was the Aphex version that was so hot at the time. I remember hearing a demo in a sound booth of the Aural Exciter and was shocked and impressed (they used cassettes for background tracks for performers, and rolled off the highs before feeding it back to the Exciter which returned the upper end), but I haven't had access to one in almost 30 years and the DSP versions I've tried just sound like they're adding noise.
As I remember, Aphex at the time was promoting the "pure" processing chain of the Compellor into the Aural Exciter, then into the Dominator. Don't know how many stations used it, but I'm sure it was smooth.
...I'm continuing to listen to your preset while I type, and now that my ears have adjusted a bit, it does remind me a bit of the local top 40 I worked at... VERY gritty, but the density and dynamic impact does remind me quite a bit of the Prisms into the 8100 & XT2. You're gotten a lot closer than I have! Perhaps I can back some things off on this preset and get closer to what I want for streaming... This is certainly a screamer!!
Bojcha, I absolutely do NOT want the 8200 sound... that was Orban's first attempt at digital and, as with most first attempts at digital, it was a gritty mess as far as I'm concerned. I'm looking for the benefits (and drawbacks, lots of them, really) of the analog 8100. The limitations of analog circuitry put certain boundaries on what could be done with the processing, and those limits are what I'm trying to duplicate.
You say the "goal" of Stereo Tool and the Optimod is different... really? I know Bob Orban's goal was to make clean, loud audio a possibility. (Please don't blame the people who set up the Optimods for the overprocessed sound that became so popular; it drove him crazy to hear his box abused that way.) As I understand it, that is the goal of Stereo Tool as well. I am certain both tools go about it in different ways, which explains why Stereo Tool sounds so much cleaner than the Optimod... But I would think with all of the controls Hans has made available to us, it ought to get Stereo Tool to react similarly to how the 8100/A reacted to sound.
I also do not want to truly crush my stream like an FM; there is no loudness war online, and the extreme limiting and clipping can work against the mp3 / AAC codecs. You and I are in total agreement that the output of a fully processed / clipped signal ready for broadcast would be terrible for a stream. My goal is to create the texture of the 1980s processors without trying to reach the absolute loudness of the 1980s stations.
Imagine a gently set pair of Audio Prisms, fed into the gently-set AGC of the Optimod, then finally barely hitting the XT2 limiters with any settings on it set for minimum (I can't remember how much control was allowed in the XT2). Grab the signal right there, before it hits the final clippers, before the final conditioning that slammed the audio right up against 100%... That's what I'm looking to create.
It should sound to a LISTENER like the output of one of the Flame-Throwin', Hot-Rockin' top 40 stations of the 80s, but it shouldn't look on a SCOPE like those stations did (where the needle didn't move).
I also want to add that if I was programing contemporary music, or a mix of 80s to now, I would NOT be trying to get this sound. Stereo Tool can get quite loud and still sound very open and uncompressed until you compare it to the original source... and it would be easy to get a great, open clean sound out of Stereo Tool for any contemporary format. It is only because I'm trying to recreate the sound of the decade, "the way you remember the songs sounding on the radio" that I'm making this unusual request. I doubt (I would hope!) most stations would NOT want this sound. Stereo Tool is capable of so much more!
Your suggestions on settings are excellent, and some of them I'd already put into place... it tells me I'm headed in the right direction... thank you!
HVZ, I look forward to hearing the new presets! They sound like they might get me closer to my goal. Thanks for the information! you're right that I'm looking for an "exciting" sound... which some people would label "fatiguing." If any processor can create that sound without driving listeners away, I'm convinced it's Stereo Tool.
I'm a complete Stereo Tool convert; I couldn't go back to any other DSP processor, and after hearing a demo of the Optimod-PC 1100, I'd much rather have Stereo Tool than Orban's latest product!
Thanks again, everybody, for your input. It really is appreciated!!
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
