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.

Robert

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.

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

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."

You people who always slag the Texars....it's pretty obvious that you don't
know how to use them.

In the times when I used Texars, in just this sort of configuration, it was
little trouble to have the LOUDEST signal on the dial (with no overmod) yet
sound so much like the source that it was virtually impossible to
differentiate between the source and the air product. Before the Texar was
the big rage it was in the mid 80's, it was virtually a secret weapon in the
processor wars that were running in Pittsburgh....although it's worth noting
that most of my competition had them, too...they just couldn't make them
sound as good.

Computers are pretty worthless tools when one doesn't know how to use them,
either.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-



"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
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.

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

In article ,
"Bob Haberkost" wrote:

You people who always slag the Texars....it's pretty obvious that you don't
know how to use them.

Oh, please.

In the times when I used Texars, in just this sort of configuration, it was
little trouble to have the LOUDEST signal on the dial (with no overmod) yet
sound so much like the source that it was virtually impossible to
differentiate between the source and the air product.

Yes, I've heard that one before. Unfortunately, the sound of the
stations don't ever seem to back them up.

Before the Texar was
the big rage it was in the mid 80's, it was virtually a secret weapon in the
processor wars that were running in Pittsburgh....although it's worth noting
that most of my competition had them, too...they just couldn't make them
sound as good.

Is that why stations sounded so bad on the east coast back then? Thanks
for clearing that up.

Computers are pretty worthless tools when one doesn't know how to use them,
either.

That doesn't mean Texars aren't crap.

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

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

It's good to see that the unfettered ego is still alive in audio processing.
While you're right...the east coast and Pittsburgh, in particular, sounded
like crap...still does, for that matter. But one station did stand out for
quality and loudness...mine. You don't have to believe me, and I have
nothing that requires that you do. But...if you want to believe that your
inadequate skills have no relationship to your inability to get an audio
processing chain to sound decent and loud with as little discernable
tradeoff, it's no skin off my nose.

Just because you can't make them sound good, doesn't make them crap, either.
Just admit that you don't know how to make them sound good, since others
have no trouble showing that it's not impossible to do.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-



"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bob Haberkost" wrote:

You people who always slag the Texars....it's pretty obvious that you don't
know how to use them.

Oh, please.

In the times when I used Texars, in just this sort of configuration, it was
little trouble to have the LOUDEST signal on the dial (with no overmod) yet
sound so much like the source that it was virtually impossible to
differentiate between the source and the air product.

Yes, I've heard that one before. Unfortunately, the sound of the
stations don't ever seem to back them up.

Before the Texar was
the big rage it was in the mid 80's, it was virtually a secret weapon in the
processor wars that were running in Pittsburgh....although it's worth noting
that most of my competition had them, too...they just couldn't make them
sound as good.

Is that why stations sounded so bad on the east coast back then? Thanks
for clearing that up.

Computers are pretty worthless tools when one doesn't know how to use them,
either.

That doesn't mean Texars aren't crap.

--
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 ,
(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.

Indeed. I was simply countering the statement by someone that "Texars
are loud and yet sound like the original source". The fact is that they
definitely do not. Whether or not a PD would find that coloration
pleasing or desirable is an issue I'll let others debate.

I don't get it, but then I think the whole loudness war thing is silly
anyway.

On that, we can agree fully.

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