Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 07:03:19 PM
I have demonstrated the loss of low-end in this kind of transfer about a dozen times to people that have no interest in the outcome of the results (aside from wanting their record to sound good).
Slipperman has experienced the loss of low-end dozens of times, and has been called on it with some marked disappointment from bands.
Steve Albini has stated the following: "I heard the low-end problem plain as day. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable."
Bob Ohlsson has experienced the obvious loss of low-end.
Fletcher has not weighed in yet.
Here's what I'm going to propose in order to lay this to rest once and for 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.
This will not be an event. There will be one assistant in the room. There will be no drinks. Just 7 professionals, listening objectively, and with the goal of putting this to rest once and for all.
I will supply the program, (which will consist of drums only) and I will make arrangements for the room and the equipment.
Rail can make sure that the transfers are done to spec. He can adjust anything he likes, on any machine, just so long as everyone is satisfied that the transfer and the playback is being executed flawlessly. I'm quite certain we can all agree to that.
We will do two transfers and two transfers only. One into Pro Tools HD. One into Radar. I will print three static mixes from each machine, to a digital 2-track of the groups choice, using db gold converters at 44.1/16. We will then compare Analog to Digital A, and Analog to Digital B. People can listen blind, not blind, I don't care. It's not going to change the results.
When I am done conducting this demonstration, there will be 6 more full-time professionals prepared to state they could hear an obvious low-end loss in transfer to Pro Tools HD. The internet pundits can then make what they want out of that. But perhaps, Digidesign would be so kind as to finally fix the problem.
I need a PM from each of the participants listed above. In the PM, please supply me with an email address where I can send correspondence to the group as a whole, and so that we can come upon a date that is satisfactory for everyone involved.
Thanks,
Mixerman
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 07:05:52 PM
I'm still waiting for Rick Krizman, Rail Jon Ragut, and Bryan Jackson. Rick is avoding responding to this challenge entirely. I have no reason to believe that Rail and Bryan don't even know I've posted this.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Post by: RKrizman on November 20, 2005, 07:36:06 PM
| 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. |
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
Post by: Ron Steele on November 20, 2005, 08:40:10 PM
You have not even heard the Chicago files yet, and because of what Albini said, the test is invalid or doesn't count?
This is very convenient, isn't it?
You always told people to go find out for themselves, and now that there is something real out there for people to hear and react to all of sudden the test is fucked up and the only way to fix it is if you do a test.
Can you say........ conflict of interest.
I'll say hedging after the fact.
P.S. the room was filled the full time pros. CRC can verify that for you if you need it.
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 10:16:43 PM
jane top this crazy thing
m
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 10:42:43 PM
Mixerman
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 10:43:24 PM
| 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 |
Are you in or not?
Yes or no?
Mixerman
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 20, 2005, 10:46:38 PM
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).
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).
BTW the only way to do the test properly is to have an independent person run the ABX comparison system and only one person goes into the control room at a time with that person and sits in the center position and runs through the tests. The computer and operator keep track of the results which are kept confidential until all listening is concluded. We did this for the watermark technology many years ago -- Warner Brothers supplied the ABX system which used Sonic Solutions.
Rail
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 10:56:40 PM
| 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). |
Point of order. I wasn't making up excuses. I had a very sick family member, and I take umbrage to you misrepresenting in this manner. If we're going to do this, then you're going to have to be a slight bit less of a dickwad. Can you do that for half a moment?
| 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 |
So then you're in.
Good.
I would prefer not to do it at Sound City, although it's not out of the question. My regards to Shivaun.
I'll schedule another room. Your maid is welcome to come, although you risk her hearing it when you don't, and that would be just plain embarassing.
Mixerman
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 20, 2005, 10:58:42 PM
2) I'll only do the test in a room/facility I trust. (Oceanway would do just fine -- Sound City's booked for a while anyway).
Rail
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 11:02:49 PM
| 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 |
Then you're out.
I knew you didn't have the balls.
Hint: I can't identify digital copies when I don't know what the original soudned like, and when you have nine files with different permeations.
Be real.
Mixerman
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 20, 2005, 11:05:26 PM
You said the RADAR transfer kept the "balls" and low end -- while the Pro Tools transfer didn't. As I said should be a no-brainer. Two of the sound files should be ballsy, and one shouldn't.
Apparently you can't!
Rail
Post by: digiengineer on November 20, 2005, 11:12:49 PM
Post by: RKrizman on November 20, 2005, 11:26:20 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 22:43 |
Are you in or not? Yes or no? Mixerman |
What, are you invading Iraq or something?
-R
Post by: RKrizman on November 20, 2005, 11:31:28 PM
| 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 |
I'm probably going to be in China, but perhaps I'll send a representative.
Post by: digiengineer on November 21, 2005, 12:01:44 AM
I know we're all busy; I've got 3 movies back to back to back, but I think it's worth humoring Mixerman on this... if not for anything else, we get to hang this over his head for a few years.
Seriously though, I've heard a few orchestral transfers (Silverado being the most recent) from analog to PTHD and haven't heard it, but if it is program dependent, I at least want to hear it (or not hear it) for myself.
My number is in my signature if you two wish to call or you can PM me, but I would like to see both of you at the test so we can finally put this to rest.
Respectfully,
Bryan Jackson
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 21, 2005, 12:02:38 AM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 23:02 | ||
Then you're out. I knew you didn't have the balls. |
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?
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.
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 21, 2005, 12:14:31 AM
Clearly, it is not known what is causing this low frequency deviation from flat, if it exists. Is it PT? Is it digital? (Forgive me if I no longer trust anecdotal evidence.)
Take a bass-rich analog recording. Mix it to ANALOG tape two ways -- "old school" and via the method mixerman et al claim leads to the problem. Have all of this done by a credible engineer who has set up credible signal paths. Disallow him from being in the room when playback occurs.
Until you separate analog from digital you cannot separate digital from PT-digital. It is wrong to (potentially) screw the test by assuming that a stereo mixdown to Nuendo and burned to WAV files won't skew the results. Get digital out of the signal path entirely EXCEPT for the one case where PT is being evaluated versus analog playback. Who cares that the audio cannot be distributed to the world at large? 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.
I dare you.
Post by: robmix on November 21, 2005, 12:15:57 AM
Post by: Mixerman on November 21, 2005, 12:17:24 AM
| robmix wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:15 |
I'd love to be there. Is there a time and a place yet ? |
You're in. But you have to take my phone call.
Mixerman
Post by: digiengineer on November 21, 2005, 12:44:52 AM
| 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. |
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.
Post by: Mixerman on November 21, 2005, 12:52:44 AM
| 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? |
The test was a debacle. Too many people. Too many tests. Too many files to compare. No way of knowing what the holy grail is in the blind comparisons. I'm still going to listen to them, but I have to check them out in a studio, tomorrow.
I'll say it again. I've demonstrated this problem a dozen times, without fail. I am merely asking, that we organize a room full of professionals, and that the two internet posters most critical of my claims come to that test and participate. All I'm getting thus far are ultimatums and muddying of the waters. I'm not going to play that game. All I want to know is who is in, and who is out.
Currently, we have John Van Nest, Robert Hoffman, Randy Nicklaus, David Hecht, Bryan Jackson, and possibly Terry Manning.
If the majority of these professionals do not agree with me. that there is a significatn and obvious lopping of the low end, then I'll come on the interent and post a letter stating that I was wrong. What more could we ask for, right?
I think you're right. I've been slightly over the top. For that I apologize. Rail, whether you participate or not, you have balls.
Anyone else here in LA who wants to participate, sign up here. I'm not going to let this get too big. 10 max. So sign up, and I'll make it happen. Might have to be in January to accomodate that many people, but hell, it's been three years, What's another month or two, right?
| 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. |
Would you like to come? This is precisely why I want Rail involved. I'd even be comfortable if he conducted the test.
Mixerman
Post by: robmix on November 21, 2005, 12:54:57 AM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:17 | ||
You're in. But you have to take my phone call. Mixerman |
Cool, but I thought you and the guy who called aren't the same person
Oh, and thank you Rick for sending your representative . . . . .
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 21, 2005, 12:55:32 AM
| 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 |
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
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 21, 2005, 01:03:35 AM
| Mixerman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:52 |
Would you like to come? |
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.
Post by: Mixerman on November 21, 2005, 01:28:35 AM
| 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 |
You're invited. Are you in?
| 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. |
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
Post by: Tidewater on November 21, 2005, 01:33:49 AM
Please take me off the mailing list.
M
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 21, 2005, 01:38:49 AM
| 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 |
Consider setting your test up here. It's a little closer for Terry, and maybe a couple of west coast types would want to get an enchilada fix. Obviously, the studio options are more limited.
That having been said, I'll gladly beg off it things are too crowded, regardless of location. If I can be of help, that's great, but no doubt there is value in having "names" associated with the results.
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 03:03:35 AM
| 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. |
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.
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 21, 2005, 03:09:25 AM
| Mixerman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 06:28 | ||||
You're invited. Are you in? |
I'm In and I've PM'ed you my info.
-C
Post by: Mixerman on November 21, 2005, 03:41:03 AM
| 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. |
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
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 03:47:23 AM
| 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 |
I'm not playing this in or out Internet showdown game. This isn't MARSH.
Let's not go there. I haven't changed from our conversation.
But I will tell you this, I am not getting involved in a folly.
Post by: digiengineer on November 21, 2005, 05:56:22 AM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:03 |
This is like the do-over of the century - |
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
Post by: Tidewater on November 21, 2005, 07:19:32 AM
| 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. |
Holy Halleefuckinglooya! What a bunch of shit, it was!
Reminded me of those soft drink shootouts, both cups were full of pee.
So, which tastes better, Coke, or Pepsi?
Uhh.. number one?
M
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 11:56:44 AM
| 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 |
In all fairness to everybody.
The reality that is coming out this long planned test is this.
People are claiming they heard it, right there plain as day, in the room.
Yet somehow on the mix files this extreme loss of low end doesn't show up.
How can you argue that on one hand some said they heard it plain as day in the studio but this doesn't show up on the files - other than to claim the mix medium was bad?
To believe that the mix medium was that bad is hard for me to believe, anyway. I you guess a few of us here have mixed to less and heard more.
This doesn't make me right, just posting my observations of the spin.
Post by: Mixerman on November 21, 2005, 12:36:29 PM
This isn't about arguing on the internet. This one is about getting the LA cats to the studio, so that I can demonstrate what happens. IF the consensus is that I'm wrong, or that my problem is overstated, I will post publicly the findings of the group, and you all can pipe as you see fit.
I want all of the emotion removed from this. If you think it's a crock, Randy, then don't come. Whatever. But once sing-ups are done, we're on email, and I really don't want to deal with the internet grabage on this. I want to get together as professionals, and have a meeting of the minds. Everyone will be treated with respect, and the petty bickering won't be expected nor tolerated. Otherwise, yuou're right. It's a crock.
I wish I could express this a bit more clearly, but I've got to get out of here. Please. If you aren't signing up, then don't post on this thread. We don't need the distractions. I just want the LA people to check in. That's all.
Mixerman
Post by: J.J. Blair on November 21, 2005, 12:41:30 PM
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 21, 2005, 01:28:17 PM
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). The tape heads would also be cleaned before each new listener entered the control room. 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. The test controller would first ask the listener to identify each system. He would then tell them which was the analog and ask them which one was the RADAR and which was the Pro Tools. Test done.
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.
If the claim is that the Lavry/Nuendo couldn't capture the low end issue.. then send us the audio files from the RADAR and Pro Tools to compare them.
Rail
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 01:33:55 PM
| 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 |
I agree that without doing the test this way, it's just back to the "I saw a flying saucer" VS "No you didn't" routine.
Now we have claims that the camera didn't capture it correctly - but I know what I saw type argument..
Post by: Mixerman on November 21, 2005, 01:40:51 PM
I guess it's about as simple as doing a transfer from analog to PT.
Fletcher asked to move the thread, which is fine by me. I'm locking it, and I'm taking this to my forum at this point. Come, don't come. I don't care.
Rail if you want to particpate, PM me. Randy, same for you. Anyone else, PM me by Friday if you want in. Otherwise . . .
Enjoy,
Mixerman