R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100  (Read 5851 times)

Tao Zervas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« on: August 25, 2005, 02:39:05 PM »

Hello,

I recently had an unpleasant surprise when I tried to bounce some mixes internally in Digital Performer, as the sound quality of the final mixed track was much inferior to the seperate tracks on playback. I seem to be in need of a mixdown deck, but do not have the budget for a 1/2" analog deck. I have an old SONY DAT machine that I have not used in a while and I'm not sure it can be trusted.
I was wondering if I can get any opinions on the Masterlink or the DVRA100 as mixdown decks, how they compare to each other, pros, cons etc.
I would also need to bring the mixes back into my MAC for some further editing before I commit the tracks to a mastering studio.
Any comments? Thank you for your help.

Tao
Logged

Benmrx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2005, 03:36:21 PM »

I've been using the masterlink for a little over 3 years now and it's been rock solid.  The DSP is ok.  It's a nice feature for making rough mixes loud and the eq isn't half bad.  All in all the sound is pretty decent, can't' complain for the price.  1/2" would sound better.  and you can burn 24 bit/96K cd's from the masterlink to import back into your computer, or just use the digital outs.
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2005, 08:57:11 AM »

Tao Zervas wrote on Thu, 25 August 2005 14:39

Hello,

I recently had an unpleasant surprise when I tried to bounce some mixes internally in Digital Performer, as the sound quality of the final mixed track was much inferior to the seperate tracks on playback.


Tao


Tao, can you explain this as clearly as possible. Are you saying that the same MIXER in performer that "sounds good" to you when playing back does not produce the same file quality when used in a bounce or capture?

I have done OBJECTIVE testing on bounced files done in various ways from Pro Tools. Clients have sent me digital mix bounces done in three ways:

1) by capturing directly in the Playlist

2) the bounce to disc dialogue that makes a separate file

3) Capturing digitally via SPDIF or AES to an external device (e.g. Masterlink) or another pro tools system.

And (assuming the Pro Tools system is working properly and not defective or pushing the CPU to the limit) ALL THREE FILES test IDENTICAL, bit for bit. Needless to say, there is no sonic difference either among the bit-identical files.

The ONLY differences I have been able to quantify between "btd" versus capturing the output digitally in the EDL or Playlist or an external device have been when the CPU has been underpowered, and the automation has not quite caught up or matched between the two different types of "bounces". I had a client with Cubase and an underpowered PC where bounce to disc really sounded discrepant (and measured differently!) to capturing a "live mix" in a Masterlink. There are logical reasons for these different methods sounding different, but we have to separate the voodoo from the facts.

The fact is that technically, there is no difference when a mix engine captures its output "offline" to a new file versus to a pair of tracks in the EDL. If there IS a difference and you can quantify it, then you have a defective system. Defective by definition. Stop looking under rocks for worms and look for the real physical reasons if you find defects where there should be none. And finally, prove to yourself that your captured files are truly not-identical. It is so easy for the mind to think that two sources are different when they are identical. It is much harder to admit that two sources are identical when they are.

The other day I did a comparison between two D/A converters, and for technical reasons I don't need to get into here, I was forced to play two copies of the same CD through two different transports into those D/As. UNTIL I was able to synchronize the two CDs by trial and error so that there was no delay when switching, I reached erroneous conclusions that one sounded better than the other. But it was simply that I was listening to two different parts of the music. If the delay is less than a second and more than a few milliseconds, the brain goes into overload and really reaches wrong conclusions!

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2005, 12:30:23 PM »

bobkatz wrote on Sat, 27 August 2005 08:57

Tao Zervas wrote on Thu, 25 August 2005 14:39

Hello,

I recently had an unpleasant surprise when I tried to bounce some mixes internally in Digital Performer, as the sound quality of the final mixed track was much inferior to the seperate tracks on playback.


Tao


Tao, can you explain this as clearly as possible. Are you saying that the same MIXER in performer that "sounds good" to you when playing back does not produce the same file quality when used in a bounce or capture?

I have done OBJECTIVE testing on bounced files done in various ways from Pro Tools. Clients have sent me digital mix bounces done in three ways:

1) by capturing directly in the Playlist

2) the bounce to disc dialogue that makes a separate file

3) Capturing digitally via SPDIF or AES to an external device (e.g. Masterlink) or another pro tools system.

And (assuming the Pro Tools system is working properly and not defective or pushing the CPU to the limit) ALL THREE FILES test IDENTICAL, bit for bit. Needless to say, there is no sonic difference either among the bit-identical files.

The ONLY differences I have been able to quantify between "btd" versus capturing the output digitally in the EDL or Playlist or an external device have been when the CPU has been underpowered, and the automation has not quite caught up or matched between the two different types of "bounces". I had a client with Cubase and an underpowered PC where bounce to disc really sounded discrepant (and measured differently!) to capturing a "live mix" in a Masterlink. There are logical reasons for these different methods sounding different, but we have to separate the voodoo from the facts.

The fact is that technically, there is no difference when a mix engine captures its output "offline" to a new file versus to a pair of tracks in the EDL. If there IS a difference and you can quantify it, then you have a defective system. Defective by definition. Stop looking under rocks for worms and look for the real physical reasons if you find defects where there should be none. And finally, prove to yourself that your captured files are truly not-identical. It is so easy for the mind to think that two sources are different when they are identical. It is much harder to admit that two sources are identical when they are.

The other day I did a comparison between two D/A converters, and for technical reasons I don't need to get into here, I was forced to play two copies of the same CD through two different transports into those D/As. UNTIL I was able to synchronize the two CDs by trial and error so that there was no delay when switching, I reached erroneous conclusions that one sounded better than the other. But it was simply that I was listening to two different parts of the music. If the delay is less than a second and more than a few milliseconds, the brain goes into overload and really reaches wrong conclusions!

BK



And that's it in a nutshell. We know more about antartica than we do about the auditory cortex. Excellent post Bob.

Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

Tao Zervas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2005, 05:51:13 PM »

Bob,

Thank you very much for your response.
Since I am running my system on a dual 2 gig G5, I do not think that CPU underperformance is the problem. Am I fooling myself into thinking the bounced mix sounds thinner and has less clarity? I would love for that to be the case and believe me after your comments I will do a few more blind tests.
Bouncing internally is so convenient, I would love to save the $1200 of the Tascam, not to mention knowing that my system delivers on its promises
However a bit more research on Unicorn nation on DP issues, has uncovered similar complaints by others as well, at least on DP. I do not know about Pro Tools.
I know it does not make sense in theory, but at some point I have to trust what I am hearing and believe me in this case this is the last thing I want to do.
OK, Time to run some tests..

Thanks again,

Tao.
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2005, 07:01:40 PM »

Tao Zervas wrote on Sun, 28 August 2005 17:51

Bob,

Thank you very much for your response.
Since I am running my system on a dual 2 gig G5, I do not think that CPU underperformance is the problem. Am I fooling myself into thinking the bounced mix sounds thinner and has less clarity? I would love for that to be the case and believe me after your comments I will do a few more blind tests.
Bouncing internally is so convenient, I would love to save the $1200 of the Tascam, not to mention knowing that my system delivers on its promises
However a bit more research on Unicorn nation on DP issues, has uncovered similar complaints by others as well, at least on DP. I do not know about Pro Tools.




It would be very important to do those tests on DP. Separate the myths from the facts. Do you really think the designers of DP made a defective program? Some simple objective tests should set the record straight.

Over the years I've heard of bounce problems again and again. "The stereo image gets narrower". Well, if this sort of thing happens, even if it's ephemeral, even if it's due to jitter in the monitor chain getting in the wayl, then we ought to be able to quantify it, and GET RID OF IT. Bouncing data to a new file is a perfectly legitimate and easily-done process. You don't hear people complaining about their Excel formulas getting corrupted when they copy their spreadsheets? So why should an audio program be any different?

The major reason could be that we make subjective judgments and are easily swayed by them. However, I do believe that when there's smoke, there's fire, and I've heard sonic differences such as these, where the image appears to get narrower. But that could be due to some ephemeral jitter issue... and if so, and if it is consistent for some listener, then we ought to be able to put our heads together and find the reasons and fix the problems!

What I would like to offer is that any user out there who finds an audible problem with a bounce file that appears to change the sound, we here on this forum can help you perform some objective tests and lead you through until there is a solution.

Quote:



I know it does not make sense in theory, but at some point I have to trust what I am hearing and believe me in this case this is the last thing I want to do.




You have to do it. You have to both trust what you are hearing and then be willing to test yourself objectively until we get to the bottom of it. If you hear this consistently, then you should be able to take the two "different-sounding" files, copy them to a "neutral" medium, and tell them apart. Can you?
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

3D Audio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2005, 08:13:09 PM »

3dB is down right now for some overnight maintenance but the "difference signal" levels comparing inverted files to the original files are all posted there for 15 different DAW platforms. I don't recall what the findings were for DP, but we made several interesting discoveries. But just because it might have worked then doesn't mean that there hasn't been a version upgrade that might have broken something.

When my board is back up, I'll post a link for those interested in reading our discoveries.
Logged

3D Audio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Difference signals
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2005, 09:16:21 PM »

3D Audio wrote on Mon, 29 August 2005 01:13

When my board is back up, I'll post a link for those interested in reading our discoveries.


I just realized that the board is still searchable, but allowing no posts. Here's the URL for a thread entitled "Difference Signals." It's 15 pages long but the actual difference signals are right there on page 2.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=5973

The difference signal for DP compared to PT when we did our testing was -infinity. These tests were all done using BTD. You can look at the list of results if you like. DP is number 13 on the list. Of course, the rest of the list will be meaningless unless you have the DAWSUM Sampler CD with the soundfiles on it. The key is accessible only through a URL listed on the CD. That way people are encouraged to listen first and read second.

There's an entire folder with many threads and hundreds of posts devoted to the Awesome DAWSUM Summing comparison project. I would encourage you to read as much as you like. I don't know of a more informative thread concerning summing anywhere.
Logged

Duardo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2005, 05:39:57 PM »

I've heard of this issue with Digital Performer as well.  I've also heard about people who have noticed a degradation of audio quality when they throw up a master fader as opposed to just letting everything go to the main outs.  Don't know if that was because of minor level differences or not.

I'd imagine that to test this, all you'd have to do is bounce internally to two tracks, and then run the mix out digitally and back in to a separate pair of tracks.  You should then have your two mixes in perfect sync with each other and it should be fairly easy to have someone switch them for you as you listen.

-Duardo
Logged
Duardo Hunter

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: Difference signals
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2005, 06:07:41 PM »

3D Audio wrote on Sun, 28 August 2005 18:16


The difference signal for DP compared to PT when we did our testing was -infinity.



Minus infinity!  That's a lot.  A non-zero chance of creating a black hole in the studio?

Without derailing the always fascinating talk of j*tter, I've used the DV-RA100 on a couple records now and think it's a pretty cool box.

Save for the HD, it beats the Masterlinque in every way.

No experience with the DSP in either box, but the ML is, well, lets just say it has a very small fan club when it comes to processing...

DC

Bill Mueller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4502
Re: Difference signals
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2005, 06:56:15 PM »

dcollins wrote on Mon, 29 August 2005 18:07

3D Audio wrote on Sun, 28 August 2005 18:16


The difference signal for DP compared to PT when we did our testing was -infinity.



Minus infinity!  That's a lot.  A non-zero chance of creating a black hole in the studio?

Without derailing the always fascinating talk of j*tter, I've used the DV-RA100 on a couple records now and think it's a pretty cool box.

Save for the HD, it beats the Masterlinque in every way.

No experience with the DSP in either box, but the ML is, well, lets just say it has a very small fan club when it comes to processing...

DC




That list has, at least in the past, included GM.

Best Regards,

Bill
Logged
"Don't take it personally. But this shit is a science." J.J.Blair

“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.” Irish judge, Peter Charleton

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: Difference signals
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2005, 11:25:23 PM »

Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 29 August 2005 15:56


That list has, at least in the past, included GM.



Thank goodness saving a flat version is "free" nowadays....

DC

arconaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1271
Re: Difference signals
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2005, 12:03:04 PM »

I've used the Masterlink quite a bit and in general I like it, but I do have some issues. First off, I think you're better off with an external converter. The file naming system is awkward, it would be better if you could attach an external keyboard to the thing, or a pad with letters on it, anything is better than scrolling with those up and down buttons. Leaving the default "Song 1" name is as big a mistake as not labeling a CD-R or any other media.

It would be nice if it could render to more than one playlist. For example, you're working on an album and have a hi-res playlist with your masters. You render a playlist with a red-book version, waiting for that process. Next day, you do another mix and want to burn another disc - so you render the whole thing again, or waste time shuffling files around.

Also, the only way to get data off it is to burn a disc. Really annoying. Doing the removable drive mod to it seems like a good idea, if you want to go to the trouble.

I did have a drive crash in one of those things so backup, backup, backup. And - Editing start and end points is destructive, which always makes me nervous.


I'm very interested in that new Tascam unit, I'd love to hear more about it.

Of course, I'd trade 'em all in for a nice 1/2" ATR.  Razz

Noah
Logged
You Are Number Six

Tao Zervas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2005, 01:00:27 PM »

Duardo wrote on Mon, 29 August 2005 22:39

I've heard of this issue with Digital Performer as well.  I've also heard about people who have noticed a degradation of audio quality when they throw up a master fader as opposed to just letting everything go to the main outs.  Don't know if that was because of minor level differences or not.

I'd imagine that to test this, all you'd have to do is bounce internally to two tracks, and then run the mix out digitally and back in to a separate pair of tracks.  You should then have your two mixes in perfect sync with each other and it should be fairly easy to have someone switch them for you as you listen.

-Duardo


This is exactly why I need the Alesis or the Tascam, my DAT being 16 bit.
I did some listening tests yeterday by switching back and forth between the bounced version and the tracks on playback ,knowing all the time that this is not the ideal way if conducting this test, but the only way I have right now and still hear the difference. I have the dither function set to on. maybe someone can enlighten me on whether the difference I'm hearing has to do with faulty dithering, the program not doing the math calculations right.
Noah , thanks for your input on the Masterlink.

Tao
Logged

Roland Storch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 406
Re: Difference signals
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2005, 02:32:03 PM »

arconaut wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 17:03

.


I'm very interested in that new Tascam unit, I'd love to hear more about it.

Of course, I'd trade 'em all in for a nice 1/2" ATR.  Razz

Noah


The Tascam converter are really great, not only regarding the price but the absolute quality. It easily stays against Motu 192 or Rosetta 200.

Working with it is a different thing. Sometime it takes up to 10 seconds for housekeeping after recording or to prepare for recording. But the exchange of files via USB works well. All together i think fo mastering it is great but not for recording live sound, bcause of the long preparing times.

If you hear that unit and compare it to 1/4" master tape I would prefer the Tascam for classical music - rock?n may be a different thing but it is interesting to hear what you loose when you compare recorded music from an analog mixer between the Tascam and a 1/4" tape. Haven`t heart it against 1/2" yet.
Logged

Raul Mitra

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: Difference signals
« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2005, 11:18:00 PM »

Can you use the Tascam as A/D-D/A converters, without printing I mean? I don't have high-end converters yet so maybe I can kill two birds with a stone with this unit. Maybe connect it direct to my powered monitors, if there's a volume control to the output?
Logged
Raul

George_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1234
Re: Alesis Masterlink vs Tascam DVRA100
« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2005, 11:40:14 PM »

so you will tell me, this external summing wonder is just a marketing gag?

Logged
"BORN A ROCKER, DIE A ROCKER"

George Necola

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Difference signals
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2005, 04:46:46 AM »

Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 29 August 2005 18:56




No experience with the DSP in either box, but the ML is, well, lets just say it has a very small fan club when it comes to processing...

DC




That list has, at least in the past, included GM.

Best Regards,

Bill[/quote]


Are you saying that GM endorsed the DSP in the Masterlink? I heard it directly from the horse's mouth that GM was approached to produce a process for the Masterlink (it was either an EQ or a comp, I can't remember) and they turned it down when they learned what the MIPs budget was. I concur with DC that the Masterlink's DSP should not be used for anything but, (perhaps) demos. And frankly, if you can afford a Masterlink, you can afford Wavelab and a few decent plugins, which will give superior performance to what the ML can provide.
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 19 queries.