Inovonics 223 ... any updates ?


Now that the Inovonics 223 has entered the marketplace, has any Part 15'er had the pleasure to purchace and/or test one? Interested in any user updates ... particularly percentage of modulation results and how much of an increase was realized.

timinbovey's picture

Bill from HB did a review in Radio World back in November.  If you haven't read it, it's at:


It's pretty spendy for Part 15, but I imagine if you're using a Rangemaster, etc it would do at least as well as the 222.  I've never had to use outboard processing with my Procaster as the built in processor gives me +125 with -99 no problem. 

FWIW I use a lot of Inovonics products at the full power stations, and in my shop as well and I've been very pleased with everything I've owned from them. 


Part 15 Engineer's picture

it's a hopped up DSP version of the 235. i would imagine that it would do just as good or better than the inovonics 235 (especially so with a procaster or rangemaster) which i own and am very pleased with.

Part 15 Engineer

Hindsight is 2020

I'm not a democrat or a republican, i'm a common sense moderate progressive


please don't forget to register and vote

mighty1650's picture

In my opinion based on what I've heard from the HB video the 223 completely blows the 222 out of the water. (As it should, the 222 is a rather lousy sounding piece of gear by itself)

I've never had the pleasure of hearing or using a 235 but have always been a bit curious about it.

RichPowers's picture

(As it should, the 222 is a rather lousy sounding piece of gear by itself)

 Seems I've I've heard people say that numerous times in the last 5 or 6 years.. Once upon a time I really desired one becuase a lot of part15ers tended to promote it, but now days I don't know what to believe. I've been thinking a lot about picking up one of the CRL am proccessors to put in place of the Dominator - which is actually currently my favorite piece of gear, but I'd really like to get a CLR to compare the difference since it's actually made for AM.

As for the new Inovonics gear.. I haven't a clue.

Rich Powers Part15, Take 2..

ArtisanRadio's picture

I had a Rangemaster coupled with a 222 & a Symetrix 421 and it sounded pretty incredible. No experience with the 223.

mighty1650's picture

The key word is by itself. The 222 is capable of sounding good, it just needs a good processor in front of it. Otherwise good luck, its a muddy sounding beast that will make you loud but at the cost of fidelity and clarity. Its an excellent talk processor on its own however. It does okay with country, pretty solid with oldies, awful with heavier music. With a good multiband processor infront it can sound quite excellent with any format, I was pleased with the results when it was paired with an Optimod 9000A. (LOUD)

BillT's picture

 I've been tweaking my system for decades .... and like any dedicated hobbyist, I'm never satisfied. It's like a Rubik's cube for me .... trying to align each piece in it proper place. While I've come close ... there remains that alluring desired sound.  And while My station is 'loud' in the near-field, I'm hoping the 223 will result in a reduction (or 'perceived' reduction) in the noise floor of the signal at a distance of 1/4 mile. At what point, I wonder, should modulation be expected to diminish with range?

Radiodugger's picture

I guess, I'd have to have money to know, but...I have been happy with the Orban 422/424 comp/limiter. It's the only processing I have. It's loud, punchy and crystal clear. It works with either AM or FM. Why do I need to spend a Grand to tweak it? 

Especially now that I shut off the AM and have a CCrane FM clone covering the other three people in my building! LOL! I highly recommend the Orban 424a for those like me, who have to save for months for something $200+...


Rich's picture

No.  It remains the same as was generated by the transmission system.

What DOES diminish with range is the intelligibility of the modulation of that AM signal at the output of an AM receiver -- which is based on the physical location and specifications/performance of the receive system, local r-f noise, and the interference present from co- and adjacent-channel AM stations.

BillT's picture

Interesting Rich.  So...would it be safe to equate a processor to an 'intelligibility booster?'  Is that the goal?

Rich's picture

That would be one way of thinking of it.  The general goal is to increase the useful coverage area of the station by keeping the average modulation level as high as practical without creating objectionable distortion of the program audio, or interfering with other AM stations.

BillT's picture

Well put. Thanks.

Radiodugger's picture

Not trying to hijack the thread. Mighty mentioned:

"The key word is by itself. The 222 is capable of sounding good, it just needs a good processor in front of it. Otherwise good luck, its a muddy sounding beast...With a good multiband processor in front it can sound quite excellent...I was pleased with the results when it was paired with an Optimod 9000A."

Why would a person buy a 222, just to have to spend another GRAND+ to run it? Is the Orban 422a/424a not enough? The only other comp/limiter I have used is the Yamaha GC2020. The Orban blows that away...

So now we have the 223. A $900 box. OK guys. I'll just drop it, if there's no interest...


mighty1650's picture

The 222 is an NRSC compliance box, it was meant to be an addon for pre-existing installations to bring them into compliance with the new NRSC and bandwidth rules. It was not originally intended nor designed to be ran alone but users found it capable of running by itself when paired with a moderate AGC or compressor such as the Aphex Compellor. Your orban 424 would sound pretty good (and LOUD) with the 222.

Radiodugger's picture

Thank you Mighty! The INOmini 223 is the IDEAL Part 15 AM transmitter processor. I wish I could knock that price in half...