In article ,
John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
(Robert Zachrisson) wrote:

I have recently come over a used Optimod 8100 whitch is modified with
the Texar RCF-1 unit.
Anyone have any info on the Texar mod?
Any info would be helpful.

The most helpful advice I can probably give you is to attempt to return
the unit to stock Orban and throw the Texar away.

The RCF-1 card is needed if you're using the Texar Prism for
pre-processing before the Orban. I know Mooretronix at 800-300-0733
often carries used Prisms and can probably get you data if you really
need it, and I know that Gentner took over all the Texar stuff and
may have docs.

But I agree with Jon. Unless you're into massively overprocessing your
audio, get rid of the RCF-1.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

But I agree with Jon. Unless you're into massively overprocessing your
audio, get rid of the RCF-1.

It is easy to make a station loud. The trick is to keep people from
tuning out from fatigue. The Texar is the most easily-recognizable bad
processing in the industry (second only to the infamous
Audimax/Volumax). I don't know anyone who cannot spot one instantly on
the air after ten seconds of listening.

I don't call that "transparency".

--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

But I agree with Jon. Unless you're into massively overprocessing your
audio, get rid of the RCF-1.

It is easy to make a station loud. The trick is to keep people from
tuning out from fatigue. The Texar is the most easily-recognizable bad
processing in the industry (second only to the infamous
Audimax/Volumax). I don't know anyone who cannot spot one instantly on
the air after ten seconds of listening.

I don't call that "transparency".

There are plenty of PDs who don't want transparency, and in fact who
want processing that specifically puts their fingerprint on the sound
and makes it sound different than everything else on the dial. Not
necessarily better, just different.

I don't get it, but then I think the whole loudness war thing is silly
anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

There are plenty of PDs who don't want transparency, and in fact who
want processing that specifically puts their fingerprint on the sound
and makes it sound different than everything else on the dial. Not
necessarily better, just different.

Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?


--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring
production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --FZ

Hi, Scott!

In article ,
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:

Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?

Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.

--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:


Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?


Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.


Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...


--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring
production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --FZ

the old WABC trademark reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...

Sheesh. Talk about mixing metaphors.

None of the WABC jocks screamed, nor were they known as "boss jocks." I don't
know what station you thought you were listening to, but it wasn't WABC.

the old WABC trademark reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...

Sheesh. Talk about mixing metaphors.

None of the WABC jocks screamed, nor were they known as "boss jocks." I don't
know what station you thought you were listening to, but it wasn't WABC.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:22:55 +0000, Eric C. Weaver wrote:

John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:


Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?


Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.


Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...

Can someone explain terms like the "air stream" or recommend a good web
site for the lay-folk like myself. I am interested in following
discussions like this, but I have no technical background in audio.

Thanks...Michael

"Eric C. Weaver" wrote in message ...
John Higdon wrote:
In article ,
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:


Is anybody still using reverb on the microphone channels?


Few, thankfully. However, at least some mic processing is nearly
ubiquitous at major market stations.


Compression and EQ, certainly, but I'm referring to the old WABC trademark
reverb-on-screaming-boss-jock sound...

Think back a minute:

Herb Oscar Anderson (HOA) did not scream
Ron Lundy did not scream
Chuck Leonard did not scream
Dan Ingram did not scream
Cousin Brucie--does voice cracking constitute screaming???

Howerver:

SuperMax bellowed
Dick Biondi was frantic
Joey Reynolds was nuts
Gary Stevens pushed
Wolfman Jack howled

I could go on and on...I miss 'em all