Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Our engineering prototype parts guy had a sign behind his desk that said: Failure to plan ahead on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com wrote: From: Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, August 16, 2009, 9:19 AM No, John, I was never been a CE, but a PD several times. This same guy was the first to have on his door a sign I've since seen several other places: Procrastination on Your Part Does Not Constitute An Emergency on My Part 73, Paul, AE4KR __
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
[snip] - Original Message - Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression At 8/14/2009 17:54, you wrote: Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting some tough standards were allowed. Oh, it was very open. How tough can it be to simply speak up? Bob NO6B Well, I can think of at least two hams I've known with throat problems, such that they could not speak loudy. Yes, a pain but that was their disability. That repeater would have shut them out, which I consider rather unforunate. There is also the issue of emergencies: someone in some kind of accident (think auto) who either got a damaged mic, or is injured themselves, trying to use the repeater. While not likely in either case, its very real for that person if it happens. --STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
That's right up there with Our credit manager is Helen Waite. If you want credit, go to Helen Waite George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413 - Original Message - From: Jim Brown w5...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 5:04 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression Our engineering prototype parts guy had a sign behind his desk that said: Failure to plan ahead on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part 73 - Jim W5ZIT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Apparently you are one of the former Chief Engineers at the station I am currently the engineer of! -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:36:11 AM PDT From: Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com In my years in broadcast radio, I often saw program directors and general managers who wanted engineering to alter equipment to accommodate some prima donna morning talent too lazy to exercise proper mic technique or maintain proper levels. One particularly brave chief engineer responded, I'm sorry, this is engineering. You're describing a human resources problem.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
No, John, I was never been a CE, but a PD several times. This same guy was the first to have on his door a sign I've since seen several other places: Procrastination on Your Part Does Not Constitute An Emergency on My Part 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:00 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression Apparently you are one of the former Chief Engineers at the station I am currently the engineer of! -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:36:11 AM PDT From: Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com In my years in broadcast radio, I often saw program directors and general managers who wanted engineering to alter equipment to accommodate some prima donna morning talent too lazy to exercise proper mic technique or maintain proper levels. One particularly brave chief engineer responded, I'm sorry, this is engineering. You're describing a human resources problem.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
On Aug 10, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Laryn Lohman wrote: Nate, your comments about compression and bad-sounding audio coming in from IRLP just goes to show, at least in part, that improperly set-up compression/AGC sounds bad. Totally agreed. I have been fighting improperly built/designed AGC's in telco for years. (Imagine a glass-walled conference room. Why do people put glass walls in conference rooms anyway?! Looks pretty, but totally impractical for audio engineering... LOL! Also worked for a place that built completely CIRCULAR conference rooms, and then put the speakerphones in the center of the table. Yeah... you can probably guess what that sounded like... and how shocked everyone was that the solution was, Move the phone over here..., as you slide it to the edge of the table... sigh. Other favorites have been room mics in the ceiling right next to HVAC outlets, um... let's see... what else... oh, there's more than I can even remember. Kinda freaky when you can just have someone call you can you can recognize them by how they sound, too... Oh, you have X microphone and it's near the corner of the room, right?) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:30 AM, skipp025 wrote: Hi Nate, re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Nate Duehr n...@... wrote: You're a brave man to say it, Skipp. Here's my problem with it. Let's just say there's a very large linked repeater system that decided MANY years ago that they could fix the incoming audio from their IRLP link from BADLY CONFIGURED IRLP NODES by adding a commercial compressor-limiter in-line. Depends on what's coming out of the IRLP source... it's not the job of a limiter/compressor to improve already over crunched bad audio. My advocate for a little audio compression statement is meant to deal with helping soft talking, non booming (higher pitch) voice types. The specific case I referenced was a simple repeater with one half-duplex link radio. Understand. They were RAISING low-level nodes that hadn't bothered to set their audio properly. Problem was, good sounding, higher level nodes were obviously having some horrible effect on their compressor/ limiter they weren't really aware of, since they had so many bad- sounding ones calling them regularly. :-) Hey guess what folks. The audio left here JUST FINE... someone on that end decided to muck around with it. Not much I can do about that. If you were close to them... you could offer to have a look at the levels and crank the controls back down to a more realistic value. But when things progress to this level... you very often have to deal with some type of control freak who's going to crank the knob back up after you and Elvis have left the building. They were thousands of miles away... I decided it wasn't my problem. :-) Do I realize that the vast majority of folks setting up IRLP nodes don't bother setting levels CORRECTLY to a network standard? Oh heck, yes. I rant about that at least once a year on the IRLP list... to mostly deaf ears. A lot of Amateurs lack the resources of a decent Communications Service Monitor, some experience or a knowledgeable friend offering to help. The human ear is not a linear device so most cases of setting levels by perceived audio value are not good. Yeah, understand. I always offer to help with the test gear if I'm in range of a reasonable drive, and not too busy. I think you're focused on the wrong issue... I run Multi-Hub and Chained Repeater Links with well thought out audio levels and they do include a very modest amount of limiting type compression... and they sound great. You probably need to vent a stronger opinion against bad audio level choices made by the over casual repeater system/equipment owner/operator(s). LOL... Yeah, I doubt any systems you're engineering are casually engineered. LOL! :-) I'd like to say I've done a lot of the proper homework... and I suspect few users can tell the brand name of the majority of our repeaters from the on-air audio. And there's a fairly large mix of many different equipment brands... You have, I'm sure. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
I have to say, it IS very annoying when users have very low audio. We have a guy around here that always insists on speaking softly. I think he does it to try to set an example because he thinks most other users are way too loud. Then everyone's having to reach for their volume control. Very agrevating, especially when he runs a net. I ask him to repeat every other thing he says, even if I heard him the first time. Maybe the light bulb will come on for him. 73 Paul - Original Message - Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression At 8/14/2009 17:54, you wrote: Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting some tough standards were allowed. Oh, it was very open. How tough can it be to simply speak up? Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
There's a difference between a new user or someone who doesn't understand talking closer or a little bit louder to a mic versus someone trying to be a horses a$$ operator (aka lid). In the few soft talker cases we experience here... one or two very polite explanations will often do the job. In conversations will regular users who might temporarily drift back from their mics, we simply answer back with Audio! Audio! loudly into our next transmissions and they get it and return to normal. ... doesn't chase anyone away mad. Regardless of the method used... You'll probably not easily cure the horses a$$ operator of his/her embedded issues. On very busy metro repeater systems HA Operators often end up as targets for the hecklers and less mature ops to go after (mock)... and they do. There doesn't seem to be an easy fix... cheers, s. Paul Holm p...@... wrote: I have to say, it IS very annoying when users have very low audio. We have a guy around here that always insists on speaking softly. I think he does it to try to set an example because he thinks most other users are way too loud. Then everyone's having to reach for their volume control. Very agrevating, especially when he runs a net. I ask him to repeat every other thing he says, even if I heard him the first time. Maybe the light bulb will come on for him. 73 Paul - Original Message - Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression At 8/14/2009 17:54, you wrote: Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting some tough standards were allowed. Oh, it was very open. How tough can it be to simply speak up? Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
It's no more closed than a repeater with CTCSS or even a tight squelch, but what a pain in the butt for users with equipment set properly! You hear the repeater drop, wait for the beep, and then are doubling with someone? That's a solution? This sounds like the work of a passive-aggressive type who'd rather automate the punishment than offer help. Most people coming into the hobby today come from a world of horrid bluetooth headsets and auto record levels, and have never seen a VU meter. What? It matters how loud or close I am? In my years in broadcast radio, I often saw program directors and general managers who wanted engineering to alter equipment to accommodate some prima donna morning talent too lazy to exercise proper mic technique or maintain proper levels. One particularly brave chief engineer responded, I'm sorry, this is engineering. You're describing a human resources problem. I always thought it might be useful to record a local ARES net, edit excerpts of people with really bad audio, and make them available as MP3 files on a website afterward. You can tell someone his audio is so low you can't understand him, but until he hears it, he may think you're just picky. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: ae6zm To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:54 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting some tough standards were allowed. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one doesn't call it an OPEN repeater. OPEN being anyone operating within the limits of the FCC rules is welcome. It would be ANDed with the COS, so that anyone too soft-spoken would drop out of the repeater. We had one repeater around here with that feature. AFAIK it worked quite well. .
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
In my years in broadcast radio, I often saw program directors and general managers who wanted engineering to alter equipment to accommodate some prima donna morning talent too lazy to exercise proper mic technique or maintain proper levels. And if the engineer was smart he would have done it... One particularly brave chief engineer responded, I'm sorry, this is engineering. You're describing a human resources problem. My over and under bet says the brave chief is probably no longer employed at that location. His answer was not the best answer... s.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Any ol' audio detector/filter/comparitor would do. Nothing fancy like the SmartVox we use for Shuttle audio (which doesn't work on amplitude, but rather changes in audio frequency), just something that says I saw peaks over 4 kHz or average deviation over the past 5 seconds was at least 1.5 kHz. Bob NO6B What action does the above circuit take? It would be ANDed with the COS, so that anyone too soft-spoken would drop out of the repeater. We had one repeater around here with that feature. AFAIK it worked quite well. Let me get this straight... someone installed a circuit that would cut off the transmission if the user didn't talk with a loud enough voice into the mic? Wow... It was removed when the entire repeater was replaced; I suspect the trustee didn't want to bother grafting the old circuit into the new repeater. Besides, by then the user base was likely well trained. Think anyone might have ever left in frustration? ... maybe embarrassed or felt chased away by not clearly understanding what was required of them? ... or were they all eventually well trained? ... at least those who stuck around? s.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting some tough standards were allowed. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one doesn't call it an OPEN repeater. OPEN being anyone operating within the limits of the FCC rules is welcome. Wes AE6ZM VE7ELE ARRL Techncial Specialist Lincoln, CA AEC Placer County ARES CM98iv SKCC #5769 It would be ANDed with the COS, so that anyone too soft-spoken would drop out of the repeater. We had one repeater around here with that feature. AFAIK it worked quite well.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
At 8/14/2009 08:54, you wrote: Let me get this straight... someone installed a circuit that would cut off the transmission if the user didn't talk with a loud enough voice into the mic? Actually, I think it looked for sufficient modulation to activate the repeater. Once it was up, it would stay up until COS drop. Think anyone might have ever left in frustration? ... maybe embarrassed or felt chased away by not clearly understanding what was required of them? ... or were they all eventually well trained? ... at least those who stuck around? IIRC, that repeater was fairly busy back in the day when the VOX was in place. So I'd say most were well trained, the few that left probably gave the lesser-used low-level repeaters more use. Win-win. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
At 8/14/2009 17:54, you wrote: Sounds like, in essence, it was a closed repeater. Only those meeting some tough standards were allowed. Oh, it was very open. How tough can it be to simply speak up? Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Jim Brown w5...@... wrote: One way might be to set the transmitter deviation to 5 kHz for a 2.5 kHz deviation input signal. Set the VOX threshold to trip at about 3 kHz input deviation and use it to switch in a 6 dBV pad to cut the deviation back down. A fast attack VOX with a slow release would keep the audio from pumping up and down. 73 - Jim W5ZIT You'd get compression/limiting just using the example above without any type of Vox Control Circuit. If the input versus output audio (deviation) values are properly thought out the original circuit without any extra circuit hardware is all you'd really need. No need to complicate things... cheers, s.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Re: An advocate for a little audio compression A lot of people have voices, which are not considered Radio or Broadcast Quality in both pitch and volume. Add a little mic shyness and you're often stuck with lower average deviation. n...@... wrote: Still, no reason they can't close-talk the mic with whatever voice they have. Many people new to radio can be more than casually skeptical about shoving a mic right up to their mouth. I've seen situations where some people who are first exposed to two-way radio are quickly chased away by the fairly bossy or negative actions of others in regards to orders about close talking into a mic. Trying to inform and fix users about close talking the mic at higher volume levels does a good job of scaring some folks off. I guess this is where philosophical issues come to play. I don't care if I lose users that are incapable of properly modulating their radios. Some people do care and there are novel and fairly easy ways to help address the situation. Any ol' audio detector/filter/comparitor would do. Nothing fancy like the SmartVox we use for Shuttle audio (which doesn't work on amplitude, but rather changes in audio frequency), just something that says I saw peaks over 4 kHz or average deviation over the past 5 seconds was at least 1.5 kHz. Bob NO6B What action does the above circuit take? s.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Skipp, right, you do get audio compression by hitting the limiter in the transmitter harder. I've done that several times myself on repeaters. It does give a nice boost to the user's audio, but it increases audio background noise by the same amount. I've A/Bd input audio vs. output audio numerous times and the output audio always has more wind noise, other people talking, RF noise, etc., than the input does. Essentially, this is a very fast release compressor. This is why I always recommend SLOW release compression, more properly called AGC or ALC. Several seconds release time for sure. It sounds much better than hitting the transmitter limiter harder, and accomplishes the same goal. Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, skipp025 skipp...@... wrote: Jim Brown w5zit@ wrote: One way might be to set the transmitter deviation to 5 kHz for a 2.5 kHz deviation input signal. Set the VOX threshold to trip at about 3 kHz input deviation and use it to switch in a 6 dBV pad to cut the deviation back down. A fast attack VOX with a slow release would keep the audio from pumping up and down. 73 - Jim W5ZIT You'd get compression/limiting just using the example above without any type of Vox Control Circuit. If the input versus output audio (deviation) values are properly thought out the original circuit without any extra circuit hardware is all you'd really need. No need to complicate things... cheers, s.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
At 8/13/2009 08:11, you wrote: Any ol' audio detector/filter/comparitor would do. Nothing fancy like the SmartVox we use for Shuttle audio (which doesn't work on amplitude, but rather changes in audio frequency), just something that says I saw peaks over 4 kHz or average deviation over the past 5 seconds was at least 1.5 kHz. Bob NO6B What action does the above circuit take? It would be ANDed with the COS, so that anyone too soft-spoken would drop out of the repeater. We had one repeater around here with that feature. AFAIK it worked quite well. It was removed when the entire repeater was replaced; I suspect the trustee didn't want to bother grafting the old circuit into the new repeater. Besides, by then the user base was likely well trained. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
One way might be to set the transmitter deviation to 5 kHz for a 2.5 kHz deviation input signal. Set the VOX threshold to trip at about 3 kHz input deviation and use it to switch in a 6 dBV pad to cut the deviation back down. A fast attack VOX with a slow release would keep the audio from pumping up and down. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Wed, 8/12/09, skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com wrote: From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 10:54 AM n...@... wrote: Yes, but increasing the user's deviation to the proper level would help a lot more. A lot of people have voices, which are not considered Radio or Broadcast Quality in both pitch and volume. Add a little mic shyness and you're often stuck with lower average deviation. Trying to inform and fix users about close talking the mic at higher volume levels does a good job of scaring some folks off. A simple VOX ANDed with the COS would take care of that. Bob NO6B I would be interested in a description of the above... cheers, s. At 8/11/2009 08:28, you wrote: Hi Paul, One has to deal with reality... while you might consider a soft talking person not properly trained, more than a fair number of users don't have a booming voice. In a larger number of cases a little bit of added audio compression/ limiting helps resolve the low (higher/soft pitch) perceived volume level difference. The brain is pretty good about picking a voice from background audio so just being able to hear the receive audio better is going to help.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
n...@... wrote: Yes, but increasing the user's deviation to the proper level would help a lot more. A lot of people have voices, which are not considered Radio or Broadcast Quality in both pitch and volume. Add a little mic shyness and you're often stuck with lower average deviation. Trying to inform and fix users about close talking the mic at higher volume levels does a good job of scaring some folks off. A simple VOX ANDed with the COS would take care of that. Bob NO6B I would be interested in a description of the above... cheers, s. At 8/11/2009 08:28, you wrote: Hi Paul, One has to deal with reality... while you might consider a soft talking person not properly trained, more than a fair number of users don't have a booming voice. In a larger number of cases a little bit of added audio compression/limiting helps resolve the low (higher/soft pitch) perceived volume level difference. The brain is pretty good about picking a voice from background audio so just being able to hear the receive audio better is going to help.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
At 8/12/2009 08:54, you wrote: n...@... wrote: Yes, but increasing the user's deviation to the proper level would help a lot more. A lot of people have voices, which are not considered Radio or Broadcast Quality in both pitch and volume. Add a little mic shyness and you're often stuck with lower average deviation. Still, no reason they can't close-talk the mic with whatever voice they have. Trying to inform and fix users about close talking the mic at higher volume levels does a good job of scaring some folks off. I guess this is where philosophical issues come to play. I don't care if I lose users that are incapable of properly modulating their radios. A simple VOX ANDed with the COS would take care of that. Bob NO6B I would be interested in a description of the above... Any ol' audio detector/filter/comparitor would do. Nothing fancy like the SmartVox we use for Shuttle audio (which doesn't work on amplitude, but rather changes in audio frequency), just something that says I saw peaks over 4 kHz or average deviation over the past 5 seconds was at least 1.5 kHz. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Hi Paul, One has to deal with reality... while you might consider a soft talking person not properly trained, more than a fair number of users don't have a booming voice. In a larger number of cases a little bit of added audio compression/limiting helps resolve the low (higher/soft pitch) perceived volume level difference. The brain is pretty good about picking a voice from background audio so just being able to hear the receive audio better is going to help. I've got racks and racks of many brands of audio processing gear available for testing... but you don't need that when a little more/higher audio drive level to the repeater transmitter section will hit the limiter/compressor harder. Doesn't take much and things can quickly get out of hand (excessive compression/limiting) if you get greedy. So don't get greedy... I like about 6dB of audio compression... some of my broadcast audio friends who are also Hams can hear and tell me when the audio crunches approaching 10dB (which amazes me their ears are that good) so it's my opinion 10dB audio compression is too much in most situations. The ease of monitoring a local repeater during club activities is very much improved with a small amount of main transmitter limiting/compression. The disparity in perceived loudness is greatly reduced when you don't have to reach for the volume control (knob) so often. cheers, s. Paul Plack pl...@... wrote: Skipp, I generally agree, but it's not the fault of the user's voice. It's a lack of training in mic technique, sometimes combined with audio circuits that aren't easily user-accessible. Compression on the repeater eliminate's the user's need to get things right at the source, and one day, he's going to need to operate simplex. I've worked with broadcast compressors for many years, and agree they could play a useful role in repeater audio chains. But I always wanted to design one that was a little different, and digital control of an analog signal path seems like a good candidate. Specifically, I'd like to have something like a compressor with very fast attack and infinitely long release, immediately dropping gain as needed to accommodate voice peaks, but not releasing until COS dropped. This would essentially set the audio gain individually for each user at the start of a transmission, without any ongoing compression to create the obnoxious pumping artifact we all know and hate. The downsides would be additional background noise before the first syllable, and difficulty in distinguishing users with low audio from users with inadequate signal strength. Both would feature increased background noise as a symptom. Then again, IRLP users hand out S-meter reports from a thousand miles away, so maybe it doesn't matter...(sigh) Just running the audio gain 6-10 dB hotter into a fast limiter still allows great disparity in perceived loudness, but at least the guys with low audio can be heard. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: skipp025 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:07 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression ...a number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio...Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system... .
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Hi Nate, re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Nate Duehr n...@... wrote: You're a brave man to say it, Skipp. Here's my problem with it. Let's just say there's a very large linked repeater system that decided MANY years ago that they could fix the incoming audio from their IRLP link from BADLY CONFIGURED IRLP NODES by adding a commercial compressor-limiter in-line. Depends on what's coming out of the IRLP source... it's not the job of a limiter/compressor to improve already over crunched bad audio. My advocate for a little audio compression statement is meant to deal with helping soft talking, non booming (higher pitch) voice types. The specific case I referenced was a simple repeater with one half-duplex link radio. If non professional hams with bad ears and opinions are going to hose up their audio with excessive compression/limiting... there's probably not a lot you can say or do about it if they're not willing to listen, learn and apply the knowledge. I won't say who or where, since I like the folks running it and have ZERO beefs with them. I just need to use them as an example of where compression/limiting is BAD NEWS. However, let's also just say that I've called them from MULTIPLE IRLP nodes I've set up PERFECTLY with a service monitor and swept for audio response, and they ALWAYS complain about whatever it is they're hearing on their end -- after their compressor-limiter. Hey guess what folks. The audio left here JUST FINE... someone on that end decided to muck around with it. Not much I can do about that. If you were close to them... you could offer to have a look at the levels and crank the controls back down to a more realistic value. But when things progress to this level... you very often have to deal with some type of control freak who's going to crank the knob back up after you and Elvis have left the building. What does this phenomenon actually lead to? I don't know. In many cases... people turning the radios volume knob off or the frequency selector to another location. Possibly switching from Pepsi to Coke or another bad thing? Maybe an idea below... I know my nodes are done right, and I know they have a LOT of other nodes connected to them that sound like ass so they tried to fix it. (sound like a$$... a Southpark reference...) But, instead of asking those folks to fix their nodes, they tried a fix on their end, and broke things for those of us sending proper levels and audio. It's more likely a Repeater Owner Operator error... If they'd put in a way to TURN IT OFF, they'd hear what a properly set up IRLP node is supposed to sound like. Only takes a decent tape or mp3 audio file recorder playback to provide the proof. But it can take time to retell the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes Do I care? Not really. But the experience of that problem over the years, has just entrenched me further in the what comes in is what goes out camp. One or a few bad examples spoils your entire apple cart... Do I realize that the vast majority of folks setting up IRLP nodes don't bother setting levels CORRECTLY to a network standard? Oh heck, yes. I rant about that at least once a year on the IRLP list... to mostly deaf ears. A lot of Amateurs lack the resources of a decent Communications Service Monitor, some experience or a knowledgeable friend offering to help. The human ear is not a linear device so most cases of setting levels by perceived audio value are not good. So I say, sure... compress away on a local repeater only. But please keep the compressed audio the hell away from outbound links to others... and away from the incoming link audio too. And always provide a way for the USERS to turn it off, just to see if it's having a bad effect. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Yes and no... each case is different and how each system operates is different. How many places your audio is going with how many times it's man-handled by people with/or hardware and equipment. I think that's a fair opinion to all. Compress the snot out of local traffic if you want... but please send the rest of us something that sounds like what your users put in out any links, especially IP-based ones. Again, how I would and do set up IP-Based Systems vary in each case and compressing the snot out of any audio is not good news. When you have or use a Non-Dynamic AGC-Based Hard Limiter it seems much easier to stay out of the over compressed crappy audio zone. Otherwise you run the risk of really bugging those of us who DID set levels and test audio, by creating a new problem the users on the far end think is OUR problem. What do you think Skipp? Is that a fair point to make? Links to other people's systems shouldn't include compression. I think you're focused on the wrong issue... I run Multi-Hub
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
At 8/11/2009 08:28, you wrote: Hi Paul, One has to deal with reality... while you might consider a soft talking person not properly trained, more than a fair number of users don't have a booming voice. In a larger number of cases a little bit of added audio compression/limiting helps resolve the low (higher/soft pitch) perceived volume level difference. The brain is pretty good about picking a voice from background audio so just being able to hear the receive audio better is going to help. Yes, but increasing the user's deviation to the proper level would help a lot more. A simple VOX ANDed with the COS would take care of that. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Nate, your comments about compression and bad-sounding audio coming in from IRLP just goes to show, at least in part, that improperly set-up compression/AGC sounds bad. For several years, I ran an Alesis 3630 on the audio coming in from IRLP and feeding our local repeater transmitter. I had it set for 3 second release (the slowest it would do), fastest attack it would do, around 12db of gain reduction, and around 6:1 ratio. It sounded absolutely fine, with no wierd stuff, no pumping, nothing obvious at all. Only consistent, good-level audio. It can work and sound great. And there's really nothing inherently different betweeen audio from IRLP and audio from your local receiver feeding your repeater transmitter. As I stated in an earlier post, the RC850 has internal AGC, and when properly set up, also works very well with few artifacts. I think where it begins to sound bad is when the release time gets too short. That's when any background noise instantly sucks-up between words, and quickly becomes ugly-sounding. Laryn K8TVZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
is a desktrac repeater capable of audio compression? - Original Message - From: Laryn Lohman lar...@hotmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 6:41 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression Nate, your comments about compression and bad-sounding audio coming in from IRLP just goes to show, at least in part, that improperly set-up compression/AGC sounds bad. For several years, I ran an Alesis 3630 on the audio coming in from IRLP and feeding our local repeater transmitter. I had it set for 3 second release (the slowest it would do), fastest attack it would do, around 12db of gain reduction, and around 6:1 ratio. It sounded absolutely fine, with no wierd stuff, no pumping, nothing obvious at all. Only consistent, good-level audio. It can work and sound great. And there's really nothing inherently different betweeen audio from IRLP and audio from your local receiver feeding your repeater transmitter. As I stated in an earlier post, the RC850 has internal AGC, and when properly set up, also works very well with few artifacts. I think where it begins to sound bad is when the release time gets too short. That's when any background noise instantly sucks-up between words, and quickly becomes ugly-sounding. Laryn K8TVZ Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Let me be a little more specific and I'm sure the following will stir up the normal bees nest I seem to always find. I enjoy bringing up the average audio level using the transmit limiter. In some cases that circuit is an agc type and in some it's a straight forward limiter. I don't normally find a reason to add an external device when what hardware is often included is quite useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression s. JOHN MACKEY jmac...@... wrote: what equipment have you used to do the compression? -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:07:45 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Yeah, I know a decent number of you are in-stone same-in to same-out repeater audio levels types. However, I've changed my opinion. A number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio and I always seem to be reaching for the volume control. So I've started adding a modest amount of audio compression to a few repeaters and the difference is a very pleasant and well received change. Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system if you're constantly reaching for the volume control while listening to more than one person talk at different levels. I'm experimenting with higher and even dynamic audio compression values but for most situations the above values seem to work well. If you're not sure how to add a bit of audio compression to your specific system... wouldn't be hard to describe it as in most cases the hardware is already in place. Transparent or flat through repeater audio can be made louder without causing the world to come to screeching halt. cheers, skipp
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Me too. When the ACC RC850 audio levels are adjusted properly, the on-board AGC gives around the 6-10db of AGC you describe. I believe it works pretty well and is not annoying. I used the term AGC intentionally. In the 850 the ratio is around 2:1, and moderately slow to release. If release is too fast, noise increases in level too fast and quickly becomes a more prominent part of the audio. The term compression implies a quicker release time than AGC does. There was a discussion of this topic some time ago, and somewhere I have some of the posts stored on this computer. I'll try to find them if there's interest. Laryn K8TVZ
