R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Does P-T lose bottom when you transfer from tape? Testing Mixerman's premise  (Read 45108 times)

Gannon Kashiwa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17

Mixerman wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 10:56

I haven't bothered reading this thread yet, but I would like to point out one thing. When I stated 3 years ago, that there was a 6db roll off at 60 hz, I was trying to give some kind of picture as to the severity of the problem. That is not a measurement that I have made. I would say that the most accurate description of the problem is the lopping off of the bottom octave. If you are in an accurate listening environment, the low end energy loss is quite apparent when compared to the original 2".

As I have stated many times, this is a glaring problem. I do not expect the HD unit to sound exactly like the 2". I do however expect it to be relatively close. When I make the same transfer into a RADAR and compare, while I still prefer the opriginal 2" for obvious reasons, the differences are negligible and I am able to move on without feeling that the integrity of my audio was destroyed.

That's all.

Carry on.

Mixerman



This should be easy to set up correctly and listen and measure the result.  As long as the tape deck and the Pro Tools interfaces are calibrated perfectly or at least to within .1 dB on each channel, then the "playing field" should be level and reproducing the same mix through the same console by over-patching and recording the mixes to the same deck should reveal any discrepancies.  We should be able to hear the difference and measure it with a spectrum analyzer or shoot FFTs if there's an AP (and qualified driver) handy.

If there is a glaring problem, then quantifying it scientifically is the only way we can deal with it.  Listening is a subjective experience and until we're sitting in the same room, under the same conditions hearing the same program material, there can't be any real interaction or sharing.  If there is something, the test conditions need to be accurately set up.  We need to nail it objectively, measure it and repeat it - that's the greater good we can expect from doing this.  It's not about anybody "winning" or "crying uncle", at least it isn't that for me.  It's about honoring the ears that use this product and claim we've missed something obvious.

Let's do this.

-GK
Logged

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968

My live drum experience was with a 192. Where I somewhat solved the problem was with an 888. That particular unit actually measured UP a dB at 50!

The 192 experience was in a studio I'd rather not drag into this since I was a visitor and kept my mouth shut so as to not screw up the vibe of somebody's album project. The monitors were big Augspurgers. I've also experienced a 192 used with an SSL 9000, and big Augspurgers where there was no apparent problem. This is why I think a test ought to include some kind of buffering and maybe even some kind of rfi filter because the problem isn't consistent.

My only agenda is that I'd like to see digi fix the problem on their end or at least see people develop an effective work-around for when the problem comes up.

Fletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3016

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 02:09

Looks like there is no need for a test at all.  The results are already in.


Maybe they is, maybe they ain't... if the "test" is repeatable, then it is "repeatable".  If the phenomenon occurs with a 'dude from Digi' in the room then it's an actual, factual, MM and Bob O. [and Slipperman, and, and, and] aren't whackos, and this is a "real" thing... or it could be the buffering thing as Mr. O suggested.

I've stated before that I thought it was a phase relationship thing which is why the thing can measure ruler at 50Hz and still be perceived as a problem... but until this is once again heard in an objective setting then it's all still conjecture.

As for comparing PT to 2"... and head bumps, and whatever ya got against tape... the fact of the matter is that using tape as the "source" to which other digital formats are compared does not defeat the purpose in the slightest.

The fact that the performances on tape are repeatable every time you hit the "play" button, the fact that the head bump from a tape machine will be present when you're playing back tape as well as when you're playing back a PT and/or RADAR recording of that piece of tape is a great big plus in my book... the only question we're having is... got balls?

With that said... any other portions of "methodology" that might want to be employed?
Logged
CN Fletcher

mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid


"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.  
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and  they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too.  It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm

blairl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376

Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 10:24


Let's do this.

-GK


Just to give weight to this offer, Gannon is an official representative of Digidesign and appears to be ready and willing to address any of these perceived issues.  Make sure to include him in any potential test sessions.
Logged

Fibes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4306


Quote:

Jeebus guys...just put a tone generator in front of the 192, a frequency analyser on the back, and call it a f&ckin' day.


We've beat that one, so has Digi.



Personally How the 192/PT stuff reacts at different levels interests me.

I'm trying to think of ways to pinpoint problem areas if they exist at all.
Logged
Fibes
-------------------------------------------------
"You can like it, or not like it."
The Studio

  http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist ?id=155759887
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse2

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859

If I may add some thoughts to the thread -

As the test is based on claims of a transfer of 2" audio into pro tools, this test should do the same.  Simple.  Everyone has talked about the right way to do the test.

It also seems that a 1/2" stereo analog tape of slammin' drums transferred to pro tools should reveal the same issues - either the bottom end is there or it isn't - but this wasn't the original claimed problem.

It is a bit interesting that 2" is, in some cases, being used as some standard benchmark. There are so many variables from elevated levels to tape formulations to the brand of analog machine (assuming 24 track heads on all).  Each one of these will sound different.  This doesn't even take into account head-wear.  There will not be the same drum sound coming back from an MCI with 456 as an ATR124 with GP9.  It won't be apples and oranges but the ripeness factor will apply.

If, after recording, the tracks recorded on the ATR124 are played back on the MCI and vice versa there will be differences there as well.  Machine to machine will differ based on many factors too.

Still, this will be interesting.
Logged
R.N.

RKrizman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404

Fletcher wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 14:02

With that said... any other portions of "methodology" that might want to be employed?


I think the only danger at this point is just yakking it to death.  The methodology seems clear--somebody push "play" already.

-R
Logged

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230

Quote:

When I stated 3 years ago, that there was a 6db roll off at 60 hz, I was trying to give some kind of picture as to the severity of the problem. That is not a measurement that I have made. I would say that the most accurate description of the problem is the lopping off of the bottom octave.


Mixerman,

When you say "a 6db roll off at 60 hz" and "lopping off of the bottom octave" I view that as two different scenarios, subtle, but still different.  

If it is a low cut at 60hz using one octave {12} what does -6db have to do with anything?

If it was a  "a 6db roll off at 60 hz" what does this have to do with the bottom octave?

Unless of course you mean a low cut at 60hz with a half octave { 6 } ?

I'll post some pdfs to look at.

Can you clarify?


Quote:

If you are in an accurate listening environment, the low end energy loss is quite apparent when compared to the original 2".


Are you saying you only hear the loss of low end in certain "listening environments" and not others?

Enjoy,

Ron

Logged
 "I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"

Fletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3016

Not to pretend to speak for MM... but my understanding was that the version recorded with the 192 system lacked depth and balls... now you can call it whatever you'd like, the stripping of the bottom octave, a perceived 6db loss around 60 Hz... the fact of the matter is that in the Control Room in which MM was working the bottom/bollocks of the presentation didn't come back correctly... Bob O. said he experienced a similar phenomenon in an Augsperger room... so I think it may very well be able to recreate that phenomenon.

Now... to address this bullshit bantying about tape machines.  The one constant in this will be the playback of tape.  It doesn't matter if the tape was recorded on an ATR-124, or a JH-24... or an A-800, 820, 827 or a combination of all of the above... the fact of the matter is that it will be played back from the same machine with the same master alignment to any and all of the various included in this test... so we will have an absolute standard reference.  As far as head wear, tape wear, or what any of the participants is wearing... it's all irrelevant because this is the ONE CONSTANT.

As far as hearing it from a 1/2 2 track... maybe, maybe not... perhaps it will have more to do with the cumulative effect of many tracks operating simultaneously... hence the whole "outboard summing box" theory and controversy [that's next BTW]. Twisted Evil
Logged
CN Fletcher

mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid


"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.  
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and  they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too.  It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859

Fletcher wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 15:05

Not to pretend to speak for MM... but my understanding was that the version recorded with the 192 system lacked depth and balls... now you can call it whatever you'd like, the stripping of the bottom octave, a perceived 6db loss around 60 Hz... the fact of the matter is that in the Control Room in which MM was working the bottom/bollocks of the presentation didn't come back correctly... Bob O. said he experienced a similar phenomenon in an Augsperger room... so I think it may very well be able to recreate that phenomenon.

Now... to address this bullshit bantying about tape machines.  The one constant in this will be the playback of tape.  It doesn't matter if the tape was recorded on an ATR-124, or a JH-24... or an A-800, 820, 827 or a combination of all of the above... the fact of the matter is that it will be played back from the same machine with the same master alignment to any and all of the various included in this test... so we will have an absolute standard reference.  As far as head wear, tape wear, or what any of the participants is wearing... it's all irrelevant because this is the ONE CONSTANT.

As far as hearing it from a 1/2 2 track... maybe, maybe not... perhaps it will have more to do with the cumulative effect of many tracks operating simultaneously... hence the whole "outboard summing box" theory and controversy [that's next BTW]. Twisted Evil



I have no idea why you would characterize my observations about analog 2" as "bullshit bantying".  Of course I understand that this test will be one 2" machine. My comments were about analog 2" in general.

As far as the 1/2 transfer, if this is just about 24 tracks or less of just drums - if I understand the original problem - in terms of summing, that may be just one stem anyway.

I look forward to the suming box tests.



Logged
R.N.

Mixerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112

A few facts:

Fact: As a producer, it is common to record on 2" and then transfer the basic tracks for working in the digital medium. I am one of many producers (and yes I've been producing lately) that does this on a regular occasion.

Fact: If you do not do a multitrack transfer of bass and drums from 2" to HD, then you are not reenacting my original findings. If you wish to attempt to disprove what I am describing, then you must repeat the cuircumstances in which this phenomenon occurs. I have never transferred a 2 track into Aslihad and compared, so I can't tell you whether that will produce the same results. I would imagine that it would. Regardless, you will need to get out your 2" and transfer 8-10 tracks of bass and drums into Aslihad HD at 24 bit-48k. What you do AFTER that, I don't care, But you must perform that transfer and comparison specifically.

Fact: This has nothing to do with the 2-bus. The outputs of the HD unit must be EXACT to the output levels of tape, using a 1K tone to calibrate the individual outputs. All internal mix faders should be at unity on the HD unit. The outputs of the HD unit should be played through the same static faders on an analog console as the 2" machine. In this case, the DAW is being use as a playback machine only. Something that is done on a daily basis. If you follow these steps, and you compare the 2" playback with the HD playback, (think of it as quality control) then you will discover that there is a glaring discrepancy between the playbacks of the two machines. Call it losing balls, call it whatever you like. It's glaring and it's unacceptable by any standards.

Fact: This has nothing to do with analog v. digital debates. I have said this over and over again. I DO NOT EXPECT THE DIGITAL TRANSFER TO SOUND EXACTLY LIKE THE ORIGINAL 2". That is not the intent when making this kind of "real world" transfer. When I transfer to the digital medium I expect something reasonably close. The lopping off of the bottom octave is not reasonably close. The Radar, in the precisely same transfer, sounds reasonably close to the 2". If you bring a RADAR in to your transfer--and I would recommend it as it's truly an eye-opener--then you will see that this is not a digital issue, but an issue with a particular piece of digital gear.

Fact: If you are not in a somewhat accurate acoustic listening environment, then there is no telling what you will be able to hear. This is a universally self-evident statement which cannot be reasonably argued. Anyone that would question such a statement puts in serious doubt their level of expertise and experience in recording. I'm not saying that you need to do this comparison in the Mother of all Listening Environments here. I'm saying you must be in a "somewhat accurate" listening environment.

If you listen, you'll hear it. If you want to do lots of other experiments, like transferring a 2 track master, or transferring into HD at higher and lower levels (just be sure the outputs levels match), or transferring with different sampling rates, or whatever, in an effort to pinpoint precisely where the problem lies, then I would encourage that. But if you do the transfer precisely as both I and Slipperman have laid out, you will hear it. This isn't a subjective difference. It's obvious, readily apparent, and repeatable. So repeat it, and stop jerking off arguing the validity of a transfer that Slipperman, I and many other producers do on a regular occasion. Paricularly when their is one digital multi-track that performs the job adequately.

Honestly, the bar really isn't very high here, folks.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Logged
Now available! The Daily Adventures of Mixerman & Zen and the Art of Mixing!

Mixerman.net
The Womb Forums
Facebook Page
Mixerman Radio Show

Gannon Kashiwa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17

Thanks for the clarity, Mixerman.

Would you be able to come to this test?  Or if not, could we do it LA somewhere with you?  It would be great to know we did it right and with you there, there would be no question.

Thanks!

-GK
Logged

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809

If you want to do it in LA, I'll volunteer my facility.  Only thing is, I have Apogee AD/DA16Xs and not 192s.  You'll need to supply those.  But I have an 827 for the 2" portion.
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036

As per Fletcher's earlier post, anything that doesn't have to do with the methodology of this test has been deleted. Enough with the conjecture, let's get the test started.

Ron, what's your time table on doing this? I think everything that needs to be discussed has been at this point...
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230

Brad, I hope to lock down when by today or tomorrow.
Logged
 "I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 20 queries.