Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[malice]

Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 17:52

Prism Dream AD-124 & Dream DA-1 Converters HHB CDR 850 Recorder

This should do

malice

[RKrizman]

Fletcher wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 08:18

So... how does this sound for a potential methodology... Take a session that was [well] recorded to tape and do a direct transfer to PT and/or RADAR and/or PT with whatever 3rd party converters are available.  Print the 1kHz alignment tone from the tape at the head of each digital transfer so the playback levels from each tested format can be repeated when playing back from PT; RADAR; 3rd Party Converters.

Overall that sounds fine.  You'll have to make sure that everything is aligned so that the tape outputs don't hit the converters too hard--unless of course that's what you're testing.  (for instance, i have one set of Apogees aligned a bit too hot to accept a direct tape transfer without a few overs--I must change that)

I recently did exactly this test with some of my own drum tracks, directly from tape and tape to PT, summed through a Nicerizer 16, using tones to keep everything lined up, and the results were extremely coherent and informative.  However, my mixdown medium was Protools, albeit with Apogee converters, so the results could still have a perceived taint.  I also heard the comparison in my room without going through any further conversion, but I have no way to share that.  

I'd also add a BTD file since it's already right there, and be sure to allow for different pan laws.

Looking forward to the results.

-R

[Gannon Kashiwa]

Hi all,

Nothing could be farther from the truth that Digi doesn't care about sound!  Many of us are musicians and have been working professionals in the audio industry and we're trying to make the best equipement and software we possibly can.  If there's something wrong here, I want to know.  So if possible, may I attend the test at CRC when it happens?  I promise to mind my manners and not get in the way.

If it's not possible to be there, I'd suggest doing the test in the following way:

1) Set up the 24 track properly
2) Record the session (well)
3) Transfer directly to Pro Tools from the tape deck via patch cords using 192 I/O converters.  If RADAR is there, let's do it as well, for comparison.
4) Set up the mix on the console
5) Cross patch to substitute multitrack sources and print mixes from both systems into another digital multitrack using the same inputs to ensure consistency.  That way, the mixes can be played back and compared side by side.
6) When posting the resulting files to the group, it would be best to not label them and reveal the results later when people have listened and made their guesses.

It would also be great to have an AP on hand to measure frequency response of the systems at various levels to verify that they're performing to spec at different gain levels.

As I said, I'd love to be present for this test - not to affect its results in one way or another, but to learn and to hear what you guys are hearing.


Thanks for your consideration!

-Gannon Kashiwa
Digidesign

[RKrizman]

BTW, I would also add to this test a sample of the original problem that MM perceived.  He had offered to send me a CD documenting it at one point, then reneged, so I assume some documentation exists somewhere.  Hard to believe that this would have been heard by him and/or Slipperman so many times and nobody ever thought to run some tape.

-R

[Fletcher]

Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 14:53

If it's not possible to be there, I'd suggest doing the test in the following way: 1) Set up the 24 track properly 2) Record the session (well) 3) Transfer directly to Pro Tools from the tape deck via patch cords using 192 I/O converters.  If RADAR is there, let's do it as well, for comparison. 4) Set up the mix on the console 5) Cross patch to substitute multitrack sources and print mixes from both systems into another digital multitrack using the same inputs to ensure consistency.  That way, the mixes can be played back and compared side by side. 6) When posting the resulting files to the group, it would be best to not label them and reveal the results later when people have listened and made their guesses. It would also be great to have an AP on hand to measure frequency response of the systems at various levels to verify that they're performing to spec at different gain levels. As I said, I'd love to be present for this test - not to affect its results in one way or another, but to learn and to hear what you guys are hearing. Thanks for your consideration! -Gannon Kashiwa Digidesign

I would suggest leaving the "recording" element out of the equation and go with something already recorded to which you have the rights [I'll be more than happy to provide such a reel should that be necessary].

The 24 track will be properly aligned... in a place at the level of CRC this should be expected as it's a "pro" facility.

If possible, the transfer should be deck out to PT in to avoid any kind of wiring funk... the comparison should be cabling from the deck to the desk removed, cabling from PT to the desk inserted in it's stead to avoid any kind of wiring funk [not that there will be any in a joint like CRC... but it's one additional variable that can be removed from the equation].  If RADAR or any other 3rd. party converters are involved... repeat process as necessary using "direct wiring" rather than patch points].

Set up the mix on the desk so the only thing that is changing is the origin of the inputs [Tape, PT, RADAR, etc.]

I agree with the non-labling of test recordings... I also agree with the AP thing... but there should also be a method to measure phase as well as level... a couple of degrees off at 50 or 100 Hz there will be an audible difference that won't be measurable with a simple level check.

So Gannon... can you bring that kind of test equipment to the party?

[RKrizman]

Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 14:53

4) Set up the mix on the console

Which one do you listen to when you set up the console mix?  I don't know if it matters, but someone will certainly claim that it does.

Perhaps you should use some tracks that sound decent with the faders at zero and just put them up flat.

-R

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

I would suggest leaving the "recording" element out of the equation and go with something already recorded to which you have the rights [I'll be more than happy to provide such a reel should that be necessary].

Fletcher, that sounds great. Thanks for offering.

While it is always fun to track I would rather focus on the transfer.

[Gannon Kashiwa]

I think using pre-recorded material is a good idea as well.  I don't have access to anything, so if you guys can provide it, that would be great.  Whatever the material, it should be on a pretty 'fresh' piece of tape to avoid shedding and risk it changing during multiple playbacks.

I don't think it matters which 'deck' is used to set up the mix.  It should just be documented as part of the test setup.

I'll work on test gear, but I'm not sure I can sign up for bringing an AP.  Let's talk about that....

Do you know when it is going to take place?

Thanks!

-GK

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

Do you know when it is going to take place?

Gannon, there is no date set yet.

[maccool]

Fletcher wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 21:43

So Gannon... can you bring that kind of test equipment to the party?

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Flame me all you want guys, I'm just an amateur with a thick skin, but having followed this for a long time it seems like this is shaping up to be some kind of d

[RKrizman]

Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 17:37

I don't think it matters which 'deck' is used to set up the mix.  It should just be documented as part of the test setup. I

If you're addressing my comment, my point was this.  If you attempt to create an aesthetically pleasing mix on the console, and there is in fact a difference in the sound of the different multitracks (tape, PT, Radar, etc.), then the one you choose to listen to as you create your mix will be the one whose attributes you will maximize.  

-R

[RKrizman]

maccool wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 17:45

Fletcher wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 21:43 So Gannon... can you bring that kind of test equipment to the party? Perhaps, with the proposed tests, MM's assertion can be held up to scrutiny, provided of course that the results are indeed objective, repeatable, and not subject to mere opinion.  With that in mind, and given that  the central issue here has to do with Mixerman's assertion, is it not essential that Mixerman agrees, a priori, with the test methodology?

Only if you're just trying to get MM to say "uncle".  Hopefully there's a greater value, and more to be learned, from this.  MM's own assertions were never demonstrated to be objective, repeatable or more than mere opinion.  

-R

[maccool]

RKrizman wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 23:30

Only if you're just trying to get MM to say "uncle".  Hopefully there's a greater value, and more to be learned, from this.  MM's own assertions were never demonstrated to be objective, repeatable or more than mere opinion.

I'm not trying to get anyone to cry "uncle".  I'm trying to figure out just what precisely is going to get tested here.  Unless that is clearly defined prior to testing, then the whole process is a waste of time.  Seems to me that the whole point of the exercise hinges on Mixerman's assertion that ProTools loses a whole bottom octave.  Neh?

If that is indeed the issue which is to be tested (viz.  Mixerman's assertion that PT loses a whole bottom octave), then having Mixerman agree to the test methodology must be a sine qua non, otherwise the fucking argument is going to just go around and around.  There's no caving in to MM here.  He's made the assertion and others have constructively suggested a way of testing it. Unless you-all and MM agree about the methodology then the whole thing is moot.  And if Mixerman can't agree with any method, then he should quietly retire.  But the method must be agreed beforehand.

I agree that the proposed process can produce something of value without regard to MM's beef about ProTools, but I don't think that was the original brief.  Mixerman has alleged a fundamental flaw in ProTools, and that is what should be addressed here.

[Fletcher]

RKrizman wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 18:25

If you're addressing my comment, my point was this.  If you attempt to create an aesthetically pleasing mix on the console, and there is in fact a difference in the sound of the different multitracks (tape, PT, Radar, etc.), then the one you choose to listen to as you create your mix will be the one whose attributes you will maximize.

Well... my hope would be that the mix would be "levels/balances only"... no EQ, no compression, maybe a slight reverb, maybe a little delay... but all that would be on sends, which would be on knobs that will be in exactly the same position when the next set of wires is moved into place.

[Fletcher]

maccool wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 19:00

then having Mixerman agree to the test methodology must be a sine qua non

Whether or not MM agrees to the test methodology is a moot point.  You have all the various sides you need... you have a guy from Digi, you have moi... and despite the article I wrote where I couldn't slam the "Venue" console... if there is any way to fillet Digi in a fair test, I'm out to nail them to a cross... so, if this group of exceptionally differing opinions can agree on a methodology then you know it's fair... sort of like a democracy but without the red states and the blue states part... but make no mistake, everyone involved in this has their own agenda, several agendas that are in opposition generally makes for one fair set of testing methodology.