- This topic has 83 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I found and installed Spartacus…but I can’t really hear it making any difference…how have others managed to configure it? Within Winamp or BB itself? I can’t figure out how to manage it within BB, and within Winamp, I’m not hearing any depth. Thanks.
Spartacus (as far as I’ve heard) tries to emulate a 222, but didn’t quite get it right.
The 222 expands only on transients. In Spartacus, however, the transient detector is dependent on the input level. Thus, louder songs will get widened more than quiet songs. If you don’t hear any difference at all, it may be that your input level is too low for Spartacus, but there is no ideal solution other than putting it AFTER a compressor, which would cause other problems.
I’ll make a proper stereo enhancer at some point, but aural exciter is ahead on the list, and another project is again ahead. 😉
///Leif
[quote author=”Leif”]Spartacus (as far as I’ve heard) tries to emulate a 222, but didn’t quite get it right.
The 222 expands only on transients. In Spartacus, however, the transient detector is dependent on the input level. Thus, louder songs will get widened more than quiet songs. If you don’t hear any difference at all, it may be that your input level is too low for Spartacus, but there is no ideal solution other than putting it AFTER a compressor, which would cause other problems.
I’ll make a proper stereo enhancer at some point, but aural exciter is ahead on the list, and another project is again ahead. 😉
///Leif[/quote]
Spartacus is a stereo enhancer based on the Orban A222 Stereo Spatial Enhancer. Instead of enhancing the whole signal, it only enhances the attack transients. This way you hear a wider sound without unnaturally exaggerated reverberation.
Grt . Appie
It was *supposed* to be, Appie, but Spartacus doesn’t seem to really work that way. Try adjusting the input level and listen to the stereo image — you’ll see what i mean. It doesn’t really seem to be looking at transients much, it’s mostly just volume. 🙂
///Leif
After 3 hours only playing with this thing i made this preset; don’t know how to name it but i like it:
Jill FM
drive 0
range 50
power 44
speed 43
bass boost 11
bass shape 0settings:
50us
HP 60Hz (or even 80Hz)
bandwidth 16kHz
Phase scrambler on
inputs & outputs interface= waveThis is on "first ball", nothing seriuos, no comparitions done etc.
preset update:
Same as above wih following changes:Bass shape -31
HPF:OFFAll depends how your TX input is built/tuned, this is home-made, so probabily incorrect response.
————
otherwise:
L/R out but "Stereo" is on, 50uS,
Input 44100 from Winamp 2.80, output 48000 realtek 268
Home-made TX, all strictly amateur-hobby levelregards!
Using the following for a Soft AC format.
CGSmooth
Final drive: +1
Range: 55
Power: 55Plugins:
1db attenuator
Impact/clunk (Settings:Impact 1, Clunk 2)
BassEFX (setting: 2)Also 2db attenuator in front of Edcast encoder.
Have a listen here.
[quote author=”Leif”]
I’ll make a proper stereo enhancer at some point, but aural exciter is ahead on the list, and another project is again ahead. 😉
///Leif[/quote]
It would be an excellent idea !!! I’m waiting your stereo enhancer Leif ! 😉
[quote author=”sneradio”]Have a listen here.[/quote]
Very nice. 🙂 Listening on PS-AAC feed.
[quote author=”JesseG”]Very nice. 🙂 Listening on PS-AAC feed.[/quote]
Thanks! Having clean source material helps (primarily TM/Jones GoldWAV files)The market for broadcast processors isn’t large enough that we could include the most advanced features (like my advanced composite clipper) in a product in this price range. The volumes just aren’t there. That being said, there’s a reason why hardware processors are $10,000, and it’s not performance!
Imagine the economics of releasing a $10,000 hardware product. With dealer margins and discounts, the manufacturers net sales price will probably be about half of the MSRP, so let’s say $5000. Let’s say the parts for the unit cost $2000.. We also have to hire people to assemble, test and ship the units.. We have to keep the lights on in the factory, and the company has to make a profit. When all is said and done, the inventor who wrote the software / designed the unit would be lucky to get $500 per unit. And, for $10,000 MSRP, we’re talking a flagship unit, not a mini or one-type unit.
As such, at $199, Breakaway Broadcast is priced right about where it needs to be. It’s a great deal for the customer, yet it nets me about the same amount of money as selling hardware units would have, even though the hardware unit would have been a few thousand dollars. Essentially, we’re cutting out the middleman and passing the savings on to you. Even after buying a computer to run it on, it still only cost you a quarter of a decent 1U unit from our competitors.
With BBP at $199, although it also happens to be the cleanest sound available at ANY price, the needs of the really small stations and enthusiasts are met. Absolutely anyone who needs an audio processor can afford BBP. If not, they have not budgeted properly, considering what a real transmitter costs.
The way I see it, the price and functionality level is just right — it’s an incredible deal, but also leaves the opportunity for more advanced versions, priced more in line with market value.
Any disagreers? (I’m sure I’ll regret asking). 🙂
Best,
///LeifYes Leif, I absolutely disagree. Haha, you asked for that one.
This is all software, there is no hardware involved at all.
I think, personal opinion, that you are entitled to make money out of it but please don’t exagurate with the comparisson to hardware boxes.
I don’t believe that a big professional audiostation is going to buy your pc based solution at this moment because of stability and audio latency.Software is software and only needs to be written once (except for updates, bugs, etc).
Not wanting to include the advanced clipper because you have to pay a big price on hardware boxes …. mmmm that is the advantage of software I thought. Affraid of the big boys? 😀
If you have the clipper etc in software ready why don’t you just implement it? (I would like to see what kind of issues it would cause because of filtering on the audiocards)My best bet for you is to develop a hardware audiocard that complies to your and FCC etc specs and that is tested with your software.
That might sell to some professional stations and would permit you to make some money.Please take this as a positive helping feedback but to my honest opinion there should only be 1 broadcast version that is fully adjustable and maybe some payable plugins.
When I released my RDS-coder in the 90’s I always provided software updates and enhancements for my customers for free and I actually never regreted it because in the end there are still more then 50 active at this moment. That made me stand out to the competition and those people will always come back.Hi Luke!
Lucky for me, big professional radio stations are buying the pc based solution. Perhaps because it’s the one that sounds best, regardless of cost. Off-air latency is a non-issue in many setups, and stability is a non-issue with BBP — it’s completely stable already.
The cost of the software is to cover research, development and maintenance, ordered greatest to smallest. It takes countless years to research and develop an audio processor like BBP.
I am looking into the hardware audiocard route. It would indeed solve many problems in one!
Having a single software version with everything would certainly be convenient, and easier for me, but it would then end up being too expensive for the little guys, who would then ask for a more affordable version.. Back to square one — I just started with the more affordable version, instead of starting with the full version. Backwards perhaps, but there you have it 😉.
I certainly do provide free updates and enhancements! Future versions of Breakaway Broadcast Processor will of course be free to everyone who has bought it.
///Leif
- The forum ‘Breakaway Professional Products – [discontinued]’ is closed to new topics and replies.