8200 vs. DSP-X products

[KRXOEngineer]

Gentlemen,

If you were on a budget project for a small-market FM, what proccesor would you use?  Would a used 8200 or the BW stuff be a better?  I noticed BW has several different models ranging from under 2k to almost 7k.   Has anyone had much experience with these diffent models and their differences?  I read though the earlier posts about processing, but I thought I'd start another thread to get a clearer take on these specific subjects.

Thanks in advance!

[1290wgli]

> Gentlemen,
>
> If you were on a budget project for a small-market FM, what
> proccesor would you use?  Would a used 8200 or the BW stuff
> be a better?  I noticed BW has several different models
> ranging from under 2k to almost 7k.   Has anyone had much
> experience with these diffent models and their differences?
> I read though the earlier posts about processing, but I
> thought I'd start another thread to get a clearer take on
> these specific subjects.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>

W/O getting into it, all CURRENT digital audio processors on the market (Orban, Omnia, BW) are better than the 8200.  The 8200 is built on 15 year old technology.

[westlife]

> W/O getting into it, all CURRENT digital audio processors on
> the market (Orban, Omnia, BW) are better than the 8200.  The
> 8200 is built on 15 year old technology.
 
Some *analog* processors are better than it, too. :-)

______________

"This is the New York Emergency Broadcast System satellite channel.  They took the crosstown bus."

[SamBuca]

A few resistors, caps, LEDs and zeners = $20

Board = $1

Msc wire, solder, etc = FREE (xmtr room floor)

Build an NRSC filter, label one of the pots as "input attenuation" and hire someone at minimum wage.  Tell them to make the blinky lights stand still...make it a game.

______________

[KRXOEngineer]

> > W/O getting into it, all CURRENT digital audio processors
> on
> > the market (Orban, Omnia, BW) are better than the 8200.
> The
> > 8200 is built on 15 year old technology.
>  
> Some *analog* processors are better than it, too. :-)
>

OK.. The next question I have is does the more expensive BW product offer much more appriciable improvement in audio quality than the 3k box?  From what I have read off their site, it offers more bands and more "distortion reduction".  Is it worth the 3k in the real world?  Are there any of you guys that have used the more expensive version yet?

Thanks for the help!

[tpt]

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!)

I have not been impressed by the sound of the few 8200's I've heard, and digital technology has progressed considerably since it was made.

Both the Omnia and Orban boxes are designed for diffiult locations (your transmitter shack) and both companies have been in the business for many years.

However, Orban does not have a unit available now (as far as I know) that matches the price/feature combination available with the Omnia 3.

If they did, it would become a Ford vs. Chevy comparison, with the DSP unit representing the Kia or Hyundai side of the equation.

[oldiesstation]

> > > W/O getting into it, all CURRENT digital audio
> processors
> > on
> > > the market (Orban, Omnia, BW) are better than the 8200.
>
> > The
> > > 8200 is built on 15 year old technology.
> >  
> > Some *analog* processors are better than it, too. :-)
> >
>
> OK.. The next question I have is does the more expensive BW
> product offer much more appriciable improvement in audio
> quality than the 3k box?  From what I have read off their
> site, it offers more bands and more "distortion reduction".
> Is it worth the 3k in the real world?  Are there any of you
> guys that have used the more expensive version yet?
>
> Thanks for the help!
> THE DSP-X is a great unit, but the dsp-xtra give you the new araine built in and is is worth the money if you can afford it..the extra jumps up in the class of the omnia  6 for half the price of the 6.and yes i am running the dsp-extra now..unbelieveable sound...

[cranium]

If I had to put together an audio chain on a budget, I would go with the dsp-xtra.

Or, try to find a used Omnia-FM. I don't know much about the Omnia 3 Turbo. I didn't care for the sound of an early Omnia 3.

I don't think the 8200's are THAT bad. They're not that good, either.

[1290wgli]

> 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.

[dspxscott]

Don't forget the DSPXmini. IMHO it also beats O3T. It's not as clean as DSPX due to less distortion cancellation techniques but IMO it is more consistent, mainly down to the wideband and multi-band AGC's being replaced with an extended range 4 band input AGC.
I forget to mention its only $1700. The downside is it can only be used on analog FM.
More information on it can be viewed at
www.dsp-x.com/DSPX-RANGE-BROCHURE.pdf
Best regards
Scott