> The key word here is "budget." As in "most bang for the
> limited bucks."
> I would go with the Omnia 3 turbo at around 3K over either
> the used 8200 (15 year old technology, as noted) or the DSP
> unit. (Hi Frank!)
> If they did, it would become a Ford vs. Chevy comparison,
> with the DSP unit representing the Kia or Hyundai side of
> the equation.
Actually, the DSP-X is like more like Toyota
. I don't want to get into a war here, but I have run the O3 Turbo vs the DSP-X. While they both perform well with jazz/classical and other fine arts programming, when it's time to get agressive (CHR/Oldies/Hot AC/Rock), it's DSP-X time. This is not just my opinion, it is also the opinion of 4 other engineers who have heard both.
The O3 could not be as loud and clean, I'm sorry. The DSP-X has a multiband clipper vs the wideband clipper in the O3. There is a big difference when trying to get voice AND music sound as clean as possible. Also, the jump from 3 to 4 bands of processing in the peak limiter, IMHO, is a big difference, especially when you can split the low and low-mid to create what I feel is better definition in your bass.
Also, the O3 is not ready for HD radio and costs anywhere from $1000-$1500 more. The DSP-X does have a digital look ahead limiter on its HD output and remote control ability. It also allows the user more controls to fine tune the sound. For $3000, it doesn't get any better. I know of more than a few stations that are using DSP-X and have had no problems, including some pretty demanding ones where multipath WAS a problem and clean audio is a must.
So much for no war. For me, the O3 was a good product that built on what Orban started with the 2200 (good, cheap processing). After a good 5 years of having the O3 as the best cost-effective processor, the DSP-X has surpassed it (and even surpasses the 2 band 2300). Perhaps Frank will raise the bar again with a new low-cost offering.
Pandora's box is open.