@mark Right, I remember reading something about that on his site, that's my point, it doesn't say that on his site anymore. All mention of it has been removed.
Got to thinking.. speculating, contemplating.. exploring- whatever you want to call it, and it occurred to me: The Culthbert processor is patterned on the Optimod processor. The Optimod, as I understand was designed for the "Loudness Wars." Its Peak Limiter provided more high-frequency power resulting in making the station sound louder without distortion.
Google says, "The Cuthbert processor (designed by Chris Cuff) and the Orban Optimod-AM 9100 share a remarkably similar multi-band architecture, and their crossover points are nearly identical, its internal alignment closely follows the standards set by Bob Orban in the late 1970s and 1980s.
💡 Observation: If you are using the Cuthbert, you are effectively running a simplified version of the "Green" or "Blue" EQ cards found in the original Optimod 9100A, which provided the aggressive 3 kHz boost that became the signature sound of 1980s AM radio"
The Schlockwood on the other hand is obviously patterned on Inovonics, as it's the same designer and of course owner of Inovonics (now retired) Jim Wood.
💡 The "Schlockwood" Connection:
Interestingly, while the Cuthbert follows the Optimod philosophy, its "rival" in the hobbyist space—the Schlockwood 200—was created by Jim Wood, the founder of Inovonics. This effectively recreated the 1980s commercial "Loudness War" between Orban and Inovonics on a smaller, hobbyist scale!"
I found that reference to the "Loudness War between Orban and Inovonics" to be intriguing, Jim Wood kind of disregarded that competition perspective between the manufactured in a 2003 Radio World article (I'll include some excerpts below) back when his company (Inovonics) was still in business. I'm also a little surprised that Inovonics was a very small business consisting of only 12 employees! I always thought it had been a big corporation, not that has anything to do with anything, it's just interesting to me. Also interesting, and something I didn't really realize is that Inovonics was a simpler designed budget priced alternative to the comparable Orbans which cost a minimum of twice the price of an Inovonics proccesor at the time.
So.. the Culbert design based on the the premium high-priced Orban, whereas the Schlockwood design based on the budget low priced model Inovonics proccesor.
Is that a fair perspective? Probably not, but it is an intriguing observation.
Anyway, while looking around I came across this 2010 study white paper which is interesting but it seems to focus only upon the Orban processing method and makes no mention of Inovonics method in which to compare (which is what I was scouting about for), nevertheless it's still an interesting paper, and surprisingly suggest heavy processing does not make the station "sound louder" here's some excerpts:
_______________________
"The Loudness War: Background,
Speculation and Recommendations
(AES 129th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010 November 4-7)
https://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/loudnesswar/loudness_war.pdf
There is growing concern that the quality of commercially distributed music is deteriorating as a result of mixing
and mastering practices used in the so-called “loudness war.” Due to the belief that “louder is better,” dynamics compression is used to squeeze more and more loudness into the recordings. This paper reviews the history of the loudness war and explores some of its possible consequences.... ... Note that this paper is not concerned with the final playback level, which can always be adjusted to the
listener’s taste; instead, it relates to the effects of processing designed to make recordings sound louder than others having the same peak level...
2.1.2. Radio
Robert Orban used the term “loudness war” in a 1979 article discussing excessive compression and limiting for FM radio broadcast. The article reviewed the battle for ratings and the pressure on station owners to boost loudness at the expense of broadcast quality. Orban stated that “two or three years ago it seemed that many stations were finally realizing that better radio could improve ratings. And the major myth brought over from AM radio – that a louder signal, regardless of quality, attracts more listeners – appeared to be losing its strength.” But within a couple of years, he saw a new escalation of the loudness war, often powered by putting multiple compressors in the processing chain. [13]
Orban and Foti used the term “loudness war” again in a 2001 articled entitled “What happens to my recording when it’s played on the radio?” In the late 1990s, they began seeing recordings that had been pre-distorted by brute-force clipping to increase their loudness. When broadcast on FM radio, clipping does not succeed in increasing the on-air loudness; instead, it just exaggerates the distortion, due to the phase rotator in the typical broadcast processing chain. [14] ...
2.3. Multiband Compression
While the ear is nature’s original multiband audio compressor, the development of powerful hardware and software compressors has facilitated the loudness war. ... .... in these admittedly extreme examples, the effects should be obvious: hypercompression makes the “It’s Oh So Quiet” verses as loud as the choruses, takes the crescendo out of the “Boléro”, removes the surprise from the “Surprise Symphony,” and turns the “Stairway to Heaven” into a sidewalk.
3.1.1. Loss of Excitement and Emotion
One of the main complaints about hypercompression is that it flattens the dramatic and emotional impact of the
music. Levitin stated that “The excitement in music comes from variation in rhythm, timbre, pitch and loudness. If you hold one of those constant, it can seem monotonous.” [11] ..... ... Recently remastered recordings, however, have frequently been criticized for excessive compression compared to the initial releases; examples cited include remasters of the Rolling Stones albums Sticky Fingers and Some Girls, the 2003 Red Hot Chili Peppers Greatest Hits, Beatles I, and the 2007 Led Zeppelin compilation, Mothership. [11][29] ..... ... A frequently cited example of hypercompression is Metallica’s Death Magnetic album, which was released simultaneously for the Guitar Hero game and as an audio CD. The CD version was much louder and more compressed than the game version, making it easy for fans to compare the two. So far, over 21,000 people have signed an online petition asking Metallica to remaster the CD with less compression. [30][31]...
“Urban legend”
It is conceivable that the idea of hypercompression causing listening fatigue may be widely believed simply
because it sounds believable, allowing this meme to spread across the internet like other “urban legends.” Milner quotes psychoacoustics researcher Stephen
McAdams as saying “I am unaware of any studies on this phenomenon.... It may be an urban myth” [2]. ...
4.3.2. Hypercompression May Not Make Music Sound Louder on the Radio
As mentioned in Section 2.1.2, hypercompressed music typically does not sound louder on the radio, and may in fact sound quieter. Orban and Foti stated, “It sounds more distorted, making the radio sound broken in extreme cases. It sounds small, busy, and flat. It does not feel good to the listener when tuned up, so he or she hears it as background music. Hypercompression, when
combined with ‘major-market’ levels of broadcast processing, sucks the drama and life from music.” [14]....
__________________________
And here's some excerpts from Radio World (2003) an interview with Jim Wood when Inovonics was still in business..
RW: You entered the processing marketplace with the 201 and 210 audio limiters and the 220 Audio Level Optimizer in the mid- 1970s. What was driving your
design philosophy? I still see stations and studios using these units.
Wood: Those three initial processors
utilized a unique VCA circuit that had
been patented by our defunct previous
employer. Initially it had been used to
control high-frequency program content
when mastering for audiocassettes.
Ownership of the patent reverted back to
us, and it proved ideal for FM pre-emphasis protection limiting. Back in those days, about the only other processor that dealt with this properly was the CBS Volumax.
RW: Inovonics jumped into the early
multi- band processing arena with the
model 230, or as some called it, the MAP
I, and then later the MAP II for AM radio.
Wood: The MAP- I was developed
almost overnight as a "do-all" processor
for both AM and FM, and proved a compromise that, at best, was marginal for either service. It was replaced in short order by our MAP-II, intended exclusively for AM. This was in the late 1970s, early days for multiband processing. The only other product on the market at the time that I was familiar with was Mike Dorrough's very successful DAP 310. Compared with Mike's smooth-sounding DAP, our " MAP- II" imparted an unusually dense and "busy" sound, which was rejected by a significant segment of the broadcasting industry at that time as
responsibility to the music arrangers,
artists and producers.
RW: In the 1990s Inovonics introduced the 705 and 706 FM stereo generators, followed by the David I and II integrated FM processors. The David models were a great low-cost alternative to Optimod. Tell us about those units and their target market.
Wood: Bob Orban's Optimods certainly defined the " single- box" approach to
processing and stereo coding, and a
splendid job they did, too. Integrating
these functions makes a lot of sense, both in terms of installation logistics and for
technical reasons as well.
... I don't like to think of Inovonics as
having "opponents" in the marketplace,
nor do I pretend that our low-cost alternatives "trounce" the other guys. But at a fraction of the price, and with surprisingly competitive performance, I like to think that we provide an excellent value for smaller markets and emerging nations. ...
Wood: The keynote of the design philosophy of any Inovonics product has to be simplicity. We use this term in our
advertising as well, but always with an
attached qualifier claiming, "consistent
with maintaining quality and performance" or words to that effect. Our designs are straightforward and, to the greatest extent possible, utilize component parts that are, and will continue to be easily and readily available. ...
...
RW: Everyone has an opinion about
whether analog sounds friendlier and
warmer than digital. Many feel that no
matter what the resolution or processing,
digital will never sound as good. How
does Jim Wood answer that claim?
Wood: When someone cites " CD-quality," I like to counter with, " CD? Why, that's a consumer format, isn't it? Certainly no match for a good 16-inch professional transcription." Just joking, of course. But we do live in an analog world. If it weren't for the cumulative effects of noise and distortion, it would make sense to keep program material in the analog domain. But today's generation of digital converters, coders, recorders and transmission links is superior to those of digital's early days. I believe that many of digital's detractors speak from initial experiences. As far as I'm concerned, current digital recordings that do not use any bit-rate reduction techniques sound fantastic. I don't miss tape hiss at all.
RW: Your company has seemed to offer affordable products using innovative design concepts usually seen in those
of more expensive competitors. What has been your secret to keeping costs so well
behaved?
Wood: Inovonics has always based product selling price on what it costs to manufacture and market the product, not on what the market will bear, or what seems to be the going rate for a competitor's equivalent. And we attempt to use common component parts rather than esoteric ones that quickly become obsolete.
RW: Where do you see your company
headed — competing with the likes of
Orban/CRL, Aphex and Omnia? Will Jim
Wood ever get tired of building broadcast equipment under the Inovonics banner?
Wood: Rather than "competitors," I prefer to think of the firms you mentioned as companions in the industry. The technology of audio processing, for
example, is so subjective that there will
always be room for alternatives. Just like
automobiles, there's no single "right" model. Excluding a major upheaval, in
technology or the broadcast industry, our
products will continue to follow broadcasters' wants and needs. We rely a lot on input from station engineers and managers, as given at NAB and other shows. And, no, barring a major economic
calamity, we'll keep plugging away as
long as we can. It's more than a job; it's a whole lot of fun.'
Vital Stats
Company name: Inovonics Inc.
Headquarters: Santa Cruz, Calif.
Founded: May 1972
Founded by: Jim Wood and Mark Drake
Employees: 12
Ownership: Private
President/CEO: Jim Wood
Sales contact number: (800) 733-0552
Web site: www.inovon.com
________________________________
One other thought: For years in the part 15 community the 222 was touted as a top choice for AM proccessor -- I'm not so sure it deserved that reputation - but I really wouldn't know, though I do know some hobbyist never liked how it sounded at all.
Incidentally here's a webpage taking a look back at all the "Loudness War" proccessors of the past: https://www.261.gr/vintage8.html
:Here is all processing box from the past, designed to satisfy broadcasting engineers dreams motto word "loud & clear" or "how to burn a hole on a dial":(or "hold and attract audiences?" Unfortunately after all that fuss "loudness WAR" punish and suffering (due the overdoing it on most cases) audience / our HEARING, so finally they DON'T "hold and attract audiences!!!"
https://www.261.gr/vintage8.htm
@richpowers I thought that the Cuthbert was his.....Sean Cuthbert's design modeled after the Orban Optimod?
@richpowers I thought that the Cuthbert was his.....Sean Cuthbert's design modeled after the Orban Optimod?
I was a little confused by that too.. I know I've heard the name Chris Cuff mentioned numerous times before but can't really put together when or how.. Chris Cuff wrote a detailed review and "unofficial manual" for the device on radiojayallen.com to help users set it up, I guess that's how Google AI got confused and said he designed it. I think it's pretty clear that Sean Cuthbert was the designer and Sean had said it was based on the Optimod.
@mark Actually there's no mention of Chris Cuff at RadioJay Allen.. that's just my dumb ass paying attention to what Google AI suggest as fact. It also says there's a Chris Cuff review of the Culbert at HB.. don't know the accuracy of that either. Apparently designed a CQuam stero transmitter similar to Cuthbert CQuam transmitter, so perhaps that's where the ai hallucinations are coming from.
https://part15.org/community/transmitter-talk/chris-cuff-c-quam-am-stereo-transmitter-discussion/
@richpowers Sean Cuthbert's design modeled after the Orban Optimod?
"... Now, the Cuthbert 6 Channel/3 Band Audio Compressor, which was pattered after the Optimod, brings the home user surprisingly close to that level of performance for $159. My single word description for it is “Amazing”!"
https://radiojayallen.com/2018/06/06/cuthbert-6-channel-3-band-audio-compressor/
"Conclusion: Sean explained to me that in order to emulate the audio performance of multi-kilobuck professional audio processors like the well-known Optimod he patterned this processor after but at a very tiny fraction of the cost,..."
https://radiojayallen.com/cuthbert-6-channel-3-band-stereo-audio-compressor/
The Schlockwood budget priced 205 model is mentioned again, supposed to come out this spring after all:
https://www.schlockwood.com/sw200page
@richpowers I don't understand the whole thing with the Schlockwood. It was discontinued because of the tariffs and cost of having it made(most likely in China). Ok so now there's a new version that does the same as the original did but with only a front panel and no cabinet, an unfinished product to "save on cost" So where is he having it made now, actually in the USA?, which would cost more or as much as sending it to China with the tariffs and no cabinet to save what?, $10 a unit? The Schlockwood was in an off the shelf Hammond case and here's the retail price, not the price a manufacturer would pay for a large quantity of them at wholesale.
Here's the Canadian retail price at Sayel Electronics https://secure.sayal.com/STORE4/shopx.php?txtSEARCH=1598DSGYPBK&mainbuttonyy=
$21.95
So how can now not having the product in a finished cabinet and just having the delicate circuit board that can easily be damaged open in no case, be saving money? It would cost maybe $10 to have it in a properly finished product. So the new version is going to sell at $100 less because of no cabinet? And where are they being made now to offset the tariffs?
The only reason that it will sell for less is it is not as desirable to have it unfinished and would be a turn off for many. Would it be in such a way that the user could finish it in a case, an off the shelf one?
So why not keep the original to begin with? There is no way a cabinet like before is that costly!
What was the whole point with the new one doing the same thing but now an inferior product?
Here's the Hammond case it came in #
1598DSGYPBK
My presumption as I've mentioned before, is a means to provide a budget option to buying the more expensive model 300 "pro" option. But I agree it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to eliminate a $20 enclosure to do it. It is a peculiar situation, but there may be more in play than what we see as the obvious.
Just to mention; There was this short littlediddy about the Schlockwood buried in Radio World January 2021 issue. I only mention it because I don't recall reading this particular one before (pages 12-13)
"Inovonics founder and industry innovator Jim Wood is active on a couple of Part 15 experimenter groups online.
"Being an admittedly elderly fellow, I got my start in radio when AM was just about the only game around:' he told us. "In my home town of San Jose, the only FM station of license there was doing elevator music — Muzak or some similar service. Anyway, I've always had a soft spot for AM radio, ' the radio' I grew up with." As a service to wannabe broadcasters, Jim developed a budget audio processor
intended for Part 15 and LPAM applications. This was a "labor of love" project in his semi-retirement, and he has sold about 80 over the past few years. The Schlockwood 200 mono processor has XLR or TRS 1/4-inch phone plug ins and outs. It can be used as a ham radio voice processor! You can view it at his site www.schlockwood.com.
Jim said his second product in the January 20, 2021 FEATURES radioworld.com I RADIOWORLD AM arena is under development with promising early results. It's an AM mod-monitor, again for the experimental broadcast crowd. Jim doubts this will have the appeal of the processor but it's a fun project.
Radio World honored Jim as an industry innovator in 2017. It's encouraging to see his innovative spirit continues!
You know that guy on eBay right now that we talked about with a Schlockwood 200 for $500 obo, since it's in my watch list, I got an alert that someone had made an offer on it, it doesn't say what the offer was but apparently wasn't accepted because it's still up there. While I agree $500 seems rather steep, I do notice in his past auctions he did sell a Schlockwood modulation monitor for $500.
I never had an interest in modulation monitors until recently because I considered it nothing more than just a basic meter reading essentially, and that it didn't really do anything. but now realize just how valuable one can be to a part 15 AM station -- BUT, even for $100, I'm not sure I would buy one (well, actually I probably would for $100, but I'm not sure I would actually know how to use it properly enough to benefit, and even it it did result in improving your stations reach, would it be a significant enough difference to justify the cost? I don't know.
But I do know of a few reviews that swear by them.
https://www.schlockwood.com/_files/ugd/aee96f_1b2501b20cbf4755ba4584fc79314172.pdf
"...and stand by for the SW205, coming later this spring."
I'm interested in seeing the SW 205 and the deal with no cabinet and if a cabinet can be had as part of the design but the buyer has to provide it
I may be interested if that is so. But just to have an open circuit board subject to handling and other easy things to damage something no way.
@mark Yeah I've been interested in them all along. Hmmm.. wouldn't it be cool if the 205 design avoided the whole ac floating ground thing.. In one of the previous threads about it I had posted what he had explained was the reasoning behind that, and how he had originally had a design specifically for DC powered... I'll have to go back and read it again, but basically the floating ground method was simpler and thus cheaper to implement (or something along those lines. I'll find the post later and post exactly what he said or the link to it).
Anyway I'm looking forward to it coming out whether I buy one or not, I like you am quite curious about it.
You know that guy on eBay right now that we talked about with a Schlockwood 200 for $500 obo, since it's in my watch list, I got an alert that someone had made an offer on it, it doesn't say what the offer was but apparently wasn't accepted because it's still up there. ....
Still doesn't say how much it sold for, but apparently an offer was accepted and it did sell https://ebay.us/m/UpgFul
