Leif

Hi Werner!

You do not need another key. Simply uninstall Breakaway Live from the laptop, install it on the PC, enter your existing key there, and it should work.

Best,
///Leif

Hi Camclone!

I have made an extremely advanced composite clipper. 150% audio in 100% modulation, 80dB pilot protection, no pilot modulation, no loss of stereo separation, no stereo-crunch on mono audio, and xylophone-safe just like BBPs main clipper.

It will be in a future advanced product. 😉

///Leif

For MPX, there isn’t — and it would be pointless. MPX would use so much bandwidth, and if you have a computer at the transmitter site anyway (to serve as the other point), you might as well run the processor on that computer instead, and run MPX directly to the transmitter.

For MP3, it probably exists — I don’t know of a suitable solution, but I will keep my eye out.

You should be able to achieve 1 or 2 second latency over the internet — but I wouldn’t run latency that "low" as it would easily drop out. Better to run 10 second latency and have some protection against buffer underruns.

There is a reason why Shoutcast has so much buffering — the internet simply isn’t reliable enough for audio otherwise!

Best,
///Leif

Otto, 320kbps MP3 codec will cause 10% overshoot on a peak-controlled signal, so it cannot be used.

Only 384kbps MP2 (in my test setup!), or LOSSLESS (PCM), has acceptable peak control. MP3 cannot be used at any bitrate.

That is, if you use MP3, it must be before the processor, not after. 🙂

///Leif

How do you mean to let it be a part of the bypass process?

Do you mean Bypass should bypass the volume attenuation as well?

(If so, a user could get blasted out of his/her chair just by clicking Bypass).

The comparison with Steinberg is an interesting one though — they make pro products. Breakaway Audio Enhancer is not a pro product, even if the internal algorithms are pro quality. I have no clue where this misconception could possibly come from — the $29.95 price tag should make it pretty clear that Breakaway Audio Enhancer is targeted for consumers. 😉

It’s not a matter of a level-matching bypass feature being a difficult feature to make.. Explaining it, making it understandable for people who aren’t audio professionals, now there’s a different story altogether.

Best,
///Leif

Hi Otto!

I agree with Sam and Jesse’s assessments.

A couple of questions though — you mentioned a 24-bit PCM link with a 5 GHz wifi connection.. Does this mean Two PCs with wifi cards talking to each other, or are you using some kind of hardware to accomplish this?

If it’s two PCs, then there is really no reason to run BBP at the studio, because you will still have a PC at the transmitter.

However: If your STL is hardware, AND your exciter has a good stereo generator built in, then you could actually run BBP at the studio, and completely avoid having a computer at the transmitter.

The peak control (clipping) in BBP is done entirely on the L/R channel — there is no composite processing. Thus, you can use an external stereo generator and get the exact same result, provided that the it’s a good, clean stereo generator which does not do any additional filtering.

The very easiest setup, though, is to have BBP in a stable computer at the transmitter. That way, you can use the MPX output and connect it directly to the exciter. In this case, there is no reason to do ANY processing in the studio — simply keep the level low enough to avoid clipping before the audio processor.

The reason why many networks are using an 8500 at the studio and 2300s at the transmitter is two-fold: price + lossy STLs.

With lossy STLs, you can’t maintain peak control over the STL. You could solve this by running unprocessed audio through the STL and having an 8500 at every transmitter, but the 8500 is a very expensive processor, and it (as evident) becomes too great of an expense even for major radio networks. Running an 8500 at the studio and 2300s at the transmitters is considered the "next best thing", but it’s quite significantly worse than having an 8500 at the transmitter instead.

BBP makes this a moot point. It’s cleaner than any other processor, and inexpensive enough to run on every transmitter site. Problem solved 😉.

Best,
///Leif

The answer is as clear-cut as unforgiving — it doesn’t work. It’s either or, not both.

I do see what you mean though.. It would be nice to at least be able to run two separate instances to take care of this usage scenario. I’ll think about it — if there’s a feasible way to add this functionality in the future, I definitely will.

///Leif