Hardware vs Software Processing (revived)

[tybee]

A real interesting thread from back when the Schlockwood SW200 first came out that talks about it, as well as pro's and cons of using a PC with StereoTool or  plugins to accomplish the same thing. It's a hardware vs software processing debate.

https://www.hfunderground.com/board/index.php?topic=49947.0

 Most interesting I think is where a guy named Kage announced he was scratch building his own processor "loosely designed after the Dorrough DAP 310 from 1973", and then later came back and revived the thread with the completed schematics and video demonstration.

Something that jumped out at me is where chantino said:

Best bang for your buck using hardware, if in fact you want it to sound loud and clean, is the Aphex Compellor/Dominator combo. ... ... .. This is not going to give you a heavily. noticeably processed sound, but it will be quite, again, LOUD, but still pleasing compared to the typical flatlined mid/highs and overbearing bass commercial station...

I used that pair for years with my station  and loved them, wish I still had them. I had sought them out because it was specifically advised in an article on the Rangemaster site about processing (It wasn't written by Hamilton, and he doesn't remember who wrote it). So I found one, then the other on eBay, and was immediately impressed, they made a noticeable difference, definitely better than the 421 and an equalizer I had previously used. -- But anyway, later there were numerous times that Bill over at HB had advised me to get rid of the Dominator and replace it with something else, because the Dominator was not designed for AM. I kind of figured he knew what he was talking about, but I just couldn't bring myself to change something which seemed to be performing so well.. I don't mean range really, I really don't know if it improved range or not l, but the sound quality was great, full. I really liked the Aphex Compellor/Dominator pair and am considering trying to find another set, even thought the Dominator was evidently actually designed for FM. But I'm also still considering the Schlockwood.

Incidentally, in case you haven't heard, the original Schlockwood SW200 has now been discontinued. It is being replaced within the next few months by two different models; one is a $500 professional rack mount version with more bells and whistles, but the other model, the SW210, which apparently is a SW200 with just a faceplate but no encloser,  it's  only going to cost about $300, and that sounds like a very inviting price to me.
https://www.schlockwood.com

But I haven't totally abandoned the idea of just using free plugins either. So I'm curious.. actually I think I know the answer already ..

How many part 15 AM stations use only software based processing?

[ThaDood]

Boomer, of AM Carrier-Current station, WAG AM690, AM Stereo, does all software based processing, before feeding audio to his C-QUAM board & LPB 5W transmitter. He's pretty happy with it. Me??? I still prefer actual components to quickly swap IN & OUT. But, that's just me. I like computer aided, than computer dependent. Working in TV & radio broadcasting, and going from manually done on-air studios & processors, to all software based automation, and even processing, and seeing the horrors of those transitions, just put a bad taste in my mouth to be 100% software dependent. Even today, albeit I have used later versions of NexGen, Zara Radio, and dabble a little with Radio DJ, automation, and they work. However, for processing, give me actual, physical, components anytime.     

[tybee]

You say you "like computer aided, not computer dependent". Amen to that. I doubt there are many part 15 stations that operate without a computer, but suspect only for music automation and prep. The general preference always appears to have been hardware processing, and that's all I've used in the past.

But on the flip side, software processing can be a lot cheaper or even free. But that also further taxes your computer which as you point out can lead to problems. Yes, I agree, hardware is the way to go

However, are not most of not all hardware processors today simply all-in-one dedicated software computers anyway? - Yeah I know it's different because it's dedicated, but still, just saying.

Curious if Boomer pre-processes everything with software prior to air, or actually processes in real time during air? Pre-processing it seems wouldn't be a problem... unless of course the programing is actually live.

Well bottom line, I agree. Right now I'm debating between what I'm already familiar with (a used Compellor/Dominator pair), or a brand new Schlockwood SW210.
- Either way you're looking at about $300, but there's always a risk with used equipment, so I'll most likely go with one of the new budget Schlockwoods as soon as they come out. It just seems the most prudent.

But then again, I could pre-proccess everything with free software and save $300. --- But I think that would get old real quick.

[ThaDood]

To answer ya what WAG AM690 does in his processing. Does he process before, or while, on-air? He told me that he does both. And BTW, he's now using AMP 1.0, the upgrade from Sonos.   http://burnill.co.uk/    That said, he recommends Sonos more for those starting out in software processing first, and recommends watching this Youtube VID.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0pV90N-8ZA     I may try it, some day. As you said, the problem with getting older, discarded, stations' processors, like from Orban, Inovonics, or CBS Volumax, is to try and find one that doesn't look like they've been through a war zone. Or, even worst, weren't ZZZZZZZZZZZZZAP'ed by lightning. (I've seen more than my share of those.) I certainly run on the cheap here, with an original TERK VR-1 audio AGC 'DPS' unit, (Bought in 2005.), to an early 1990's ART CS2 Compressor / Limiter, (Set at 4:1 COMP.), followed by a 32 Band EQ, an Audio Reflex EQ-1 from the late 70's, then to the STL link to my stations. Hey... They work, albeit it's taken a lot of fine-tweaking time to find the sweet-spots where they all work together to give me that commercial processed sound quality. And, again, the pre / post audio processing that I've done has been with Audacity. Setting shows & podcasts with just 1.5:1 COMP is a sweet-spot there, and on EQ, I'll do a sharp dive at 8kHz and above, since many podcasts don't use a de-essing unit, and have very harsh S's & T's in their speech audio. Hey... I'm still learning... 

[tybee]

Well I've now pretty much made the decision to get the SW205 as soon as they're released, had few brief correspondence with Jim Wood in the last few days. As much as I loved my old Aphex pair, they had been manufactured, what, 40 years ago? and I have no experience in servicing electronics if it needs it, so it flat out makes the most sense to buy a brand new Schlockwood that's designed by a reputable (and legendary) manufactured specifically for the purpose - and the price is right.

The more I think about it, not doing so would be just wrong! I look forward to getting a Schlockwood! Maybe I'll find I like it even more than my beloved lost Compellor/Dominator.

Schlockwood it'll be.

[tybee]

Well.. I ended up going with neither, instead bought a Culbert processor. I really wanted a Schlockwood but it's power supply entails some kind of floating ground that makes it less suitable for off-grid installations as it would require a quality inverter to be added to the mix, whereas everything else (PC and transmitter) is fine with a direct DC input, direct 12v in this case so I don't even need any step-up transformers or anything. The Culbert also takes a direct 12v input and they also has a good reputation, so I figured all things considered, it was the way to go. It's supposed to arrive tomorrow.

I really wanted to go with the Schlockwood though, and would have if not for my off-grid requirements and that floating ground.

[ThaDood]

COOL!!! I believe that we'd all would like to know how well that processor does on-air. Thus far, I've put together the Sean Cuthbert AM Stereo Transmitter kit. The auto-level AGC audio IC didn't seem to work, that came with it, but since I process my on-air audio anyway, I bypassed that. That was almost a decade ago, and I want to put that in its own metal chassis. But overall, I liked the Cuthbert Kit, and still have that. So, I don't believe that you can go wrong there.  https://www.ebay.com/usr/sean-jcil

[tybee]

Well I didn't buy the kit, I contacted him via eBay and asked him to build me one. Then he put it on eBay with a $199 buy it now and $14 shipping. I've never built a kit and wouldn't have felt confident starting with something so complex.

Radio Jay Allen provided a good review of it and Mark over at part15.org has both the Schlockwood and the Culbert and he actually prefers the Culbert, but it seems its just because it accepts unbalanced inputs or something.. l don't know, but I tend to suspect the Schlockwood is probably the higher quality unit.

[tybee]

... Thus far, I've put together the Sean Cuthbert AM Stereo Transmitter kit. ... .. overall, I liked the Cuthbert Kit, and still have that. So, I don't believe that you can go wrong there.  https://www.ebay.com/usr/sean-jcil

I've always heard good about his transmitters, I think Jay Allen also has both of them and has reviewed them on his site too. But one thing I notice with his transmitter as well as his processor is that he doesn't bother with providing balanced input/outputs.. which I kind of thought was
Important.. the Culbert processor doesn't have balanced output like the Schlockwood and most other processors seem too have. Usually I fed the Rangemaster from the balanced TRS output of other processors (like Aphex or CLRs or whatever) directly to the transmitter, but in this case need to also use the audio adapter gadget thing -- which did come with the Rangemaster for just such unbalanced type situations, so I don't have to spend another $100 to buy one, so I guess that's alright, but I don't understand why Culbert doesn't consider balanced lines as important.. Maybe it isn't that big a deal at all, what do I know?

I haven't got my new installation together yet so I've not tried the Culbert processor yet either. But I am excited to find out how it works for me..

[Bertje]

The kage project you can find at https://darkliferadio.proboards.com/thread/1029/diy-audio-broadcast-processor-scratch the project is still alive and the print layouts are available.

[Brian]

... Thus far, I've put together the Sean Cuthbert AM Stereo Transmitter kit. ... .. overall, I liked the Cuthbert Kit, and still have that. So, I don't believe that you can go wrong there.  https://www.ebay.com/usr/sean-jcil

I've always heard good about his transmitters, I think Jay Allen also has both of them and has reviewed them on his site too. But one thing I notice with his transmitter as well as his processor is that he doesn't bother with providing balanced input/outputs.. which I kind of thought was
Important.. the Culbert processor doesn't have balanced output like the Schlockwood and most other processors seem too have. Usually I fed the Rangemaster from the balanced TRS output of other processors (like Aphex or CLRs or whatever) directly to the transmitter, but in this case need to also use the audio adapter gadget thing -- which did come with the Rangemaster for just such unbalanced type situations, so I don't have to spend another $100 to buy one, so I guess that's alright, but I don't understand why Culbert doesn't consider balanced lines as important.. Maybe it isn't that big a deal at all, what do I know?

I haven't got my new installation together yet so I've not tried the Culbert processor yet either. But I am excited to find out how it works for me..

Unless you have specific reasons for needing balanced lines, if really shouldn't be an issue.

[tybee]

Unless you have specific reasons for needing balanced lines, if really shouldn't be an issue.

Glad to hear that. I'm not very technically knowable about it all, but I wonder sometimes at how it seems once upon a time fellow hobbyist (online) were always focused on every little part of the chain, from the soundcard itself used and the entire path, connections too, taken to the input of the transmitter - as if it were all so important to the quality of the broadcast. Now days concerns about quality soundcards and balanced lines doesn't seem to be an issue  Maybe it never was.

Seems balanced lines are particularly beneficial for longer runs (if I recall correctly). In my case it's short runs anyway, but if your run is going across the yard or whatever maybe . .

The reason balanced lines are needed is because the Rangemaster transmitter calls for it, so I always insured that's what it got

So, perhaps I made too big of a deal over unbalanced outputs. Like I said the gadget is going to balance the signal for the transmitter anyway