Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:05 |
I'm still waiting for Rick Krizman, Rail Jon Ragut, and Bryan Jackson. Rick is avoding responding to this challenge entirely. |
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:36 | ||
What, are you baiting me? I still haven't had a chance to listen to the results of the current test. I also have my own 2" machine and HD setup and already know what it sounds like to transfer from one to the other, so it's not such an urgent Sunday afternoon issue for me. Why not give the Chicago test a listen first. Maybe it already makes your point. -R |
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:46 |
I just got home from the studio... hold your horses! I offered to do - and arranged to do a test 3 years ago -- you kept making up reasons you couldn't attend (refresh your memory on the DUC threads if you need to). |
Quote: |
Some points: 1) You said that the low end loss was obvious -- and a layperson should easily be able to hear the problem. 2) You said that the transfer to RADAR did not suffer the same low end problem as the Pro Tools HD transfer. 3) I've probably used analog tape for more years than you, and I know what it sounds like -- if transferring a 2" from a Studer 800 into Pro Tools removed the "balls" I would have heard it a long time ago. I have no qualms rescheduling a test - I have access to a well maintained Neve 8078, Studer 827 and Studer 800, and Pro Tools HD. The test would have to be scheduled when the room isn't booked. I can even have my maids attend if we need them there. I don't believe we need to waste our time though (I know I don't need to waste mine)... unless you can successfully identify the RADAR and Pro Tools sound files which have been posted. According to your claims it should be a no brainer. (I trust, of course, that no one will feed you the answer). Rail |
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:58 |
1) I'm only in if you can succefully identify the RADAR and Pro Tools sound files. 2) I'll only do the test in a room/facility I trust. Rail |
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 22:43 |
Are you in or not? Yes or no? Mixerman |
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 22:56 |
Your maid is welcome to come, although you risk her hearing it when you don't, and that would be just plain embarassing. Mixerman |
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 23:02 | ||
Then you're out. I knew you didn't have the balls. |
robmix wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:15 |
I'd love to be there. Is there a time and a place yet ? |
jimmyjazz wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:14 |
DO THE TEST RIGHT. DOUBLE-BLIND, and with no deviation from "old-school" except for the very thing mixerman claims is the problem. Don't pollute the waters with sample rates, bit depths, beer, crowds, inadequate listening positions, etc. Just DO IT RIGHT. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:02 | ||||
Let me speak for myself and myself only, although I have heard similar thoughts from several semipro and pro engineers in the past 12 hours: You are destroying whatever rep you had amongst many of those who are aware of what is going on here. Ease up, man. You had the audacity to bitch about "hedging" before the Chicago test even occured, but now you're scheduling another "test" because you don't like the results which are coming to light? |
Quote: |
Give me a fucking break. I wouldn't trust you to run a scientific test if my life depended on it. You're in WAY too deep to do this thing right. Good grief. |
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:17 | ||
You're in. But you have to take my phone call. Mixerman |
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:03 |
To all, I want Rail Jon Rogut, Rick Krizman, John Van Nest (The Resonater), Terry Manning (compaspoint), Randy Nicklaus, and Bryan Jackson (Digiengineer), with me, in a room, in LA, in the next three weeks (before December 16), with a 2" machine, a Pro Tools HD rig, and a Radar. Thanks, Mixerman |
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:52 |
Would you like to come? |
CWHumphrey wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:55 | ||
Oh Mixerman, I'm hurt. No invite to the party? But seriously, I've known Dave Hecht for many years, and I'd be interested in his opinion. If he doesn't want to, then that's cool. Cheers, Carter William Humphrey |
jimmyjazz wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 22:03 | ||
I'd consider it. I'd want to feel confident that the protocol is set up so it wouldn't be a waste of everyone's time. I see you think things might move into January, and I have a short film to run sound on between the 5th and the 9th, and soundtrack work to complete after that, but I could probably carve out a one- or two-night trip from Austin to LA if your schedule worked for me. Nobody knows me or my work, so maybe I'd be a good control. I'll tell you this -- I don't give a rat's ass about what format "wins". I just want to know the answer. I think my ears are up to the task. |
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 01:28 |
It looks like I'll be in Austin for part of January so we should hook up while I'm there. If you want to come you can, but I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestions as to coming up with a methodology that isn't fraught with problems. It's fine with me if we fill this in tonight, because I'm going to be locked up for the next week between work and travel. Mixerman |
digiengineer wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:44 | ||
That's the plan. This won't be distributed or recorded for public consumption, and there will be far less people there. I just want Mixerman to do the test his way so we can witness it for ourselves. They'll be a problem or there won't, he'll be right or full of shit, but at least we can say "we were there". FWIW, I downloaded the Chicago test and I thought ALL the files were equally lacking low end. YMMV, but I had to check to see if my subs were working. |
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 06:28 | ||||
You're invited. Are you in? |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:03 | ||||
Who's making this plan? This is like the do-over of the century - "The test was flawed" "Mutt Lange would have better music" "All the files were equally lacking bottom end" Where were you guys last week in the planning stages? Reading what some are now posting one must think that - Albini brought a shit tape and did a shit job with his mix. The Nuendo system that everybody loved the idea of was shit and even worse than pro tools although it used Lavry converters. People who were in the room never bothered to listen to the Nuendo files until they unplugged everything from the console and then it was too late to make sure it sounded the same. Although some people claim they heard a bottom end loss in the room live, there wasn't enough bottom to begin with (or something as odd sounding) This is just some amazing lame shit here folks. So now someone is suggesting that people in a room hear this new test and then the aftermath won't be worse if someone doesn't agree with the planned outcome? With this much happening after this love fest going in? I call bullshit to the 10th power. This aftermath has only shown the bullshit level of this problem. IMHO. |
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:41 | ||||||
Does that mean you're out? I'm not organizing this on the internet. I'm inviting only people interested in results. Not people interested in a particular result. I am going to organize a methodollogy that you will all be agreeable to, but we'll do it off board, without all the distractions of short order cooks and the like. All I want to know is, who's in. Then we can organize this listening test. When we're done, if there is no consensus, then I will be happy to admit that I was wrong. In or out, Randy? Mixerman |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:03 |
This is like the do-over of the century - |
digiengineer wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:44 |
FWIW, I downloaded the Chicago test and I thought ALL the files were equally lacking low end. YMMV, but I had to check to see if my subs were working. |
digiengineer wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 02:56 | ||
In all fairness Randy, I didn't get involved with the Chicago tests because I make it a habit not to involve myself listening test over the internet... call me crazy, but that how do things. I don't like going strictly on someone's word or on test results when I'm not present to listen directly to the source. It's well documented that I don't agree with Mixerman on this issue, however, as a technician, I'm curious as to why I can't reproduce the problem, yet Mixerman, Slipperman, Bob Olhsson, and Malice claim they can. Yes, Mixerman can be grandiose at times and may be crying wolf, but I don't know that until I witness his transfer procedures in person. If there is a problem, there will be empirical data to pass along to Digidesign to correct the issue. It wouldn't be the first time I've had to do that, nor will it be the last; I've done the same for Apogee, Genex, iZ, etc. Regarding the test in Chicago, I downloaded the files out of curiosity since I pretty much predicted what the results would be in a thread on the MARSH regarding a similar test conducted in England. I never said the tests were invalid, nor were they a waste of time; I hope they were enlightening to those present. With all due respect to Steve Albini, he has a great (and probably well deserved) reputation as an engineer, but what I heard was mostly low-mid mush (but the drums did sound wide!) and very little sub-sonic information that barely reproduced on my subwoofers on both my home (NHT/Sunfire) and studio monitors (M&K, JBL). Since I wasn't in Chicago, I have no explanation as to why that is. I own one song that Steve has mixed and other than what I've heard on the radio or MTV, I'm not very familiar with his other projects,. I can say that I did not observe any radical differences in low end reproduction in the Chicago files, so what I heard from the downloaded files are consistent with my own transfers and test results in the past. For the sake putting the final nail in the coffin on this subject, I would like to witness Mixerman's tests. As I said before, I disagree with his claim, but I see no reason why I should deny his request if I have time in my schedule. If he's wrong, he'll owe me one hell of a sushi dinner. Respectfully, Bryan Jackson |
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 10:28 |
If the claim is that the RADAR and Pro Tools can't capture the analog recording reliably, then to do this test properly you would need a large format analog console and the ability to lock via video reference a 2", Pro Tools and RADAR and have them all play in sync. After transfer, they should all should be returned to the console in synch - and have the exact same mix set up for each system.. calibrated within .1 decibel. Each set of returns should be put on a group mute which is placed at the center position. An unbiased test controller would remain in the control room and only one listener would be allowed into the control room at a time. The mix console would be covered so that the listener would only see the group switches and not the console meters or the fader mutes. Between tests the group masters would be switched around so listners couldn't compare notes in the lounge (there would be 8 group masters available A through H for selection by the test controller). All group masters should be muted before the song end and kept muted when starting playback until the synchronizer says the analog has achieved lock. OTOH, if the contention still exists - that the RADAR can reliably record an analog transfer while the Pro Tools HD cannot... that test has just been concluded. If that's the claim then the files from Chicago should point that out easily - the analog and RADAR sound files should have bottom end and the Pro Tools sound files sould not. Identifying the Pro Tools sound file should be simple -- it would be the one with no bottom end, while the other two had full bandwidth. There's no reason to know which was the analog transfer sound file for this test. Rail |