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.