R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46   Go Down

Author Topic: The Chicago test results...  (Read 101542 times)

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2005, 04:23:46 pm »

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.





No way.   Smile

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.
Logged

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2005, 04:29:55 pm »

jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.





No way.   Smile

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.




I hate to be a broken record but Slipperman claimed he mainly worked with DP except for a handful of times with PT.  So then this would fall out of the pro tools world and with him mainly in the motu, digital performer world.

What would be a less than ideal circumstance?  

Is there hedging already?
Logged
R.N.

Slipperman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2005, 04:32:29 pm »

jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:23

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.





No way.   Smile

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.



Or it could be that I'm a deaf bastard... or seeing bears behind trees.

LMFBO.

I love it. I really do.

I think the above statement is more of a "probability" than a "possibility" given my abysmal track record.

Anyhoo.

Duping more crap from the 2" into the DAW today as I type this.

It's a savage justice out there... HOHOHO.

Best regards,

SM.




Logged
I refuse to be part of any club that would have me as a member. - G. Marx

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2005, 04:34:52 pm »

Quote:

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion. And that's good to know.



First off it is highly unlikely that most of the listeners will show up here to post, as a lot of them don't even know about this forum.  That is the beauty of this test. All of these AE's our well established pro's in Chicago with long term experience on both digital and analog. They have never even heard of mixerman or his claim. These guys came in with no bias toward any format or opinion. They just listened. Pull me, Gannon, Fletcher and Steve out of the equation and test results are still very clear,  concise and to the point.

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?"

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2005, 04:36:47 pm »

Quote:

 or seeing bears behind trees.



I like to refer to it as the pink elephant in the sky. Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
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?"

The Resonater

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2005, 04:56:49 pm »

[quote title=jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 21:23]
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

...it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  



Uh, yes, that's called OPERATOR ERROR.

But in fairness, I doubt that there's a single guy on this thread who hasn't at one point or another been guilty of operator error.  I know I have...many times.  And today's not even over yet.


Logged
The Resonater

Rail Jon Rogut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 570
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2005, 05:06:11 pm »

jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.



It proves that bad maintenance, inconsistent tape travel, bad cables and impedance mismatches should all be considered as possible issues when you're doing a transfer -- and don't let your preconceived bias stop you from actually doing your job.

"Great care" is what professionals get paid for -- every transfer requires "great care".

Rail
Logged
Recording Engineer

www.platinumsamples.com

Engineered Drums for BFD & Superior Drummer 2.0

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2005, 05:15:03 pm »

jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.





No way.   Smile

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.



Everytime an audio engineer is making a record or doing transfers, great care must be taken at all times.  That is the job.


I know I learned my lessons WAY before Pro Tools was around.
Logged
R.N.

azuolas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2005, 05:23:14 pm »

Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 15:00

Hi Ron

Out of interest.. how was the clock of the Big Ben wired to the system.. split to each 192 or only to the Sync I/O?  Apogee suggest that it should feed each 192 separately.

Rail


Big Ben fed Word Clock to each unit (SYNC and 4 x 192 IOs). Loop Sync cables were removed each time we used Big Ben as a reference clock. Apogee is correct if you reference just the SYNC and then use Loop Sync for the 192 the clock distribution is not as good as if you pass WC to each unit.

Azuolas
Logged

azuolas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2005, 05:31:53 pm »

Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:06

jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.



It proves that bad maintenance, inconsistent tape travel, bad cables and impedance mismatches should all be considered as possible issues when you're doing a transfer -- and don't let your preconceived bias stop you from actually doing your job.

"Great care" is what professionals get paid for -- every transfer requires "great care".

Rail



I second Rail's statement here. In my opinion a good DAW system requires a proper and constant maintenance (we all know that each DAW has substantially more variables than a common 2"/console setup) and a decent operator. Its up to the operator to run through the clocking, preferences and other settings BEFORE starting the session. Many don't do this hence all the opinions and differnt results on these boards. In out tests we MADE SURE before every single pass that everything was set 100% to the spec and we had multiple parties check it to avoid an operator error.

Azuolas
Logged

electrical

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 674
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2005, 05:33:47 pm »

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.
I will post my thoughts when I have time to fully elaborate, but I cannot agree with your summation.

Short version: In the initial rough-mix test (what we were there to do), I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.

The "stored" mixes played back from Nuendo after everything was "printed" showed much less difference between storage media than the initial playbacks did. Even distinctions beteween different digital systems and clocking methods which were apparent to everyone in the room seemed to be much harder to discern from the "printed" versions. I realize this mitigates somewhat anyone's concern for "the low-end problem," but I still feel it is an unfortunate reality.

I will expand on this in a later post, because there is much more to say, but for now that's all I have time for.

Logged
best,

steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
www.electrical.com

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2005, 05:42:25 pm »

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:33

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.
I will post my thoughts when I have time to fully elaborate, but I cannot agree with your summation.

Short version: In the initial rough-mix test (what we were there to do), I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.

The "stored" mixes played back from Nuendo after everything was "printed" showed much less difference between storage media than the initial playbacks did. Even distinctions beteween different digital systems and clocking methods which were apparent to everyone in the room seemed to be much harder to discern from the "printed" versions. I realize this mitigates somewhat anyone's concern for "the low-end problem," but I still feel it is an unfortunate reality.

I will expand on this in a later post, because there is much more to say, but for now that's all I have time for.





As I posted, comments SO FAR - before your added conclusions and I stated that the posters to date had been from the no low end loss camp.

It will be interesting to hear what you have to say in total and to listen to the files.
Logged
R.N.

Rail Jon Rogut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 570
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2005, 05:47:59 pm »

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:33


I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.


Considering that was the main reason for the tests -- why didn't you raise your hand and do that test.  That's the only test I care about.

Mixerman stated in his original DUC thread -- that the RADAR transfer didn't have the low-end loss... So in theory then the RADAR playback should have been okay while the Pro Tools/192 playback should not have.

Rail
Logged
Recording Engineer

www.platinumsamples.com

Engineered Drums for BFD & Superior Drummer 2.0

Tidewater

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3816
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2005, 06:13:28 pm »

I'd call bullshit, if I had any balls.

I won't speculate on motivations either, I'll just be quiet now, and have a funky opinion of someone.


M
Logged
Time Magazine's 2007 Man of the Year

The Resonater

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
Re: The Chicago test results...
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2005, 06:16:16 pm »

[quote title=electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:33]
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

In the initial rough-mix test (what we were there to do), I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.


Steve,

Thanks for your post.  I'm saddened to know that there might have been "drunken/boorish chatter" going on in a room in which we all hoped to learn something profound about our formats.  That's a drag.  I had thought that there were only to be a few in attendance, but from Ron's earlier post about their being a sizable contingency of Chicago-land AE's, I guess that wasn't the case.  Bummer.

It's also a shame that you weren't really allowed to do what the real purpose of the test was...that being, can a person reliably hear a low end drop when transferring from 2" tape to Pro Tools?  I agree with Rail, it's a shame that you couldn't have forced the issue and done some blind tests based on that premise only.

Thanks again for your time and effort on this, and I'm sure we'll all look forward to a more detailed analysis on the day's events and findings.
Logged
The Resonater
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46   Go Up