Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rnicklaus]

Yes Mixerman is short.

Like 5' 17" or so.

[RKrizman]

Does the same thing happen if you get small?

-R

[RKrizman]

maccool wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 20:37

The assessments of the the sounds seem to be totally subjective.  AE #1 hears one thing, AE #2 hears something else.

I think it's more like AE #1 hears one thing, AEs #2 - #18 hear something else.

Hard to believe all the other guys couldn't hear the "glaring" low end loss. Looking forward to more brilliant analysis.  

I can't believe you guys mixed to Nuendo and invalidated your whole experiment! (just kidding).

Hey, too bad you didn't mix all these formats to tape also, so you could eliminate digital itself as the culprit, whichh is really going to be the crux of the whole discussion.

-R

[The Resonater]

I've got two thoughts here:

1)  Weren't there some test tones run from the 2" into PT?  I mean, do we need to be relying on "ears" to perceive loss of low end.  Can't the 50hz tones help us determine if there is or there is not such a loss?  If 1k from the PT is coming back fine, and 50hz is down 6db, we know we have a problem, assuming that both tones were at 0db on their way into PT.

2)  Both Gannon and Ron reported that Steve asked the group if anyone perceived a loss of low end.  No one raised their hand.  Why didn't Steve at that point tell the crowd that he was perceiving a loss of low end?  Presumably, the testing could have paused long enough to check that out.  After all, that's the original reason for the test, and I don't understand why Steve didn't immediately raise issues rather than just allowing the tests to continue, after which he would declare "I heard the loss of low end, plain as day".  

Thoughts, anyone?

[azuolas]

Hi,
Here some statistics from the test.
We had 18 ABX test passes. All were played back from Nuendo system through Lavry Blue DAC. There were 18 participants in the blind test procedure.
11 out of 18 tests had a result of 10 or more WRONG answers. WRONG = listeners were not able to (ie picked the wrong answer) or could not tell the difference/were not sure (ie picked X instead of A or B as answer).
7 out of 18 tests had a result of 10-13 of CORRECT answers.
I can post the results of each test with specifics of what was compared and how many answers were correct. Before I do this we should check with Fletcher, Steve Albini, Ron Steele and Gannon Kashiwa to see if it makes sense to have this data posted before the rest of you get a chance to listen to the results and post your responses. I am working on posting the same 15 second clips at 24/96 resultion in .wav format that were used in this test.
We have full song passes for all 9 configurations tested in 24 bit 96KHz print format:
1. Analog 2" 16 track
2. Radar 48KHz (internal clock)
3. Radar 96KHz (internal clock)
4. Pro Tools HD 48 KHz (192 loop sync clock)
5. Pro Tools HD 96 KHz (192 look sync clock)
6. Pro Tools HD 48 KHz (SYNC loop sync clock)
7. Pro Tools HD 96 KHz (SYNC loop sync clock)
8. Pro Tools HD 48 KHz (BIG BEN WC clock)
9. Pro Tools HD 96 KHz (BIG BEN WC clock)
I saved the source sessions of 4-9. Steve Albini has 1 and 2-3 went back on the drives that RADAR provided to us.
We also documented most of the proceedings on the DV tape (approx. 5 hours)
I am not sure how extensive we want to get with this on the board. I will be posting the same 15 second clips as used in this test on the FTP site for you to download. If there is a consesus that we should do something else please let me know and we'll see if we can make this available to as many as possible.

Azuolas

[rnicklaus]

The Resonater wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:43

I've got two thoughts here: 1)  Weren't there some test tones run from the 2" into PT?  I mean, do we need to be relying on "ears" to perceive loss of low end.  Can't the 50hz tones help us determine if there is or there is not such a loss?  If 1k from the PT is coming back fine, and 50hz is down 6db, we know we have a problem, assuming that both tones were at 0db on their way into PT. 2)  Both Gannon and Ron reported that Steve asked the group if anyone perceived a loss of low end.  No one raised their hand.  Why didn't Steve at that point tell the crowd that he was perceiving a loss of low end?  Presumably, the testing could have paused long enough to check that out.  After all, that's the original reason for the test, and I don't understand why Steve didn't immediately raise issues rather than just allowing the tests to continue, after which he would declare "I heard the loss of low end, plain as day".   Thoughts, anyone?

Ron did post that Steve asked about what he heard as a loss to the room - The "felt the presence of an elephant in the room" part.

[crm0922]

Steve A, are you claiming that you heard the low-end loss on PT192 and NOT on RADAR?  Or a low-end loss going after a dump to either format?

The multiple-clocking device test was not a good idea.  The differences were mostly negligible, and it just gave 6 more possibilities to try to identify.

After even a few minutes of listening your perception of various frequencies changes because of how your ear tries to ignore background noise.  Ya know, like if you put one earplug in for 10 minutes and take it out, or listen to a one-sided headphone for an hour.

Simple, short A/B/X tests with everyone participating having a relatively "clean palate" (being in relative quietness for a while before) is how I would think better results could be obtained.

Chris

[rnicklaus]

RKrizman wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:37

maccool wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 20:37  The assessments of the the sounds seem to be totally subjective.  AE #1 hears one thing, AE #2 hears something else.   I think it's more like AE #1 hears one thing, AEs #2 - #18 hear something else. Hard to believe all the other guys couldn't hear the "glaring" low end loss. Looking forward to more brilliant analysis.   I can't believe you guys mixed to Nuendo and invalidated your whole experiment! (just kidding). Hey, too bad you didn't mix all these formats to tape also, so you could eliminate digital itself as the culprit, whichh is really going to be the crux of the whole discussion. -R

I look forward to Fletcher's take on why he didn't raise his hand when asked about hearing "the problem".  Was he not in the room? Could be.  

[rnicklaus]

RKrizman wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:33

Does the same thing happen if you get small? -R

You become A WILD AND CRAZY GUY!

[jlapointe]

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:33

Short version: In the initial rough-mix test (what we were there to do), I heard the low-end problem plain as day.

Were you in the exact same position in the room when you listened to the PT rough mixes as you were when you listened to the 2"?

- J.

[azuolas]

For those that were not a part of the test yesterday I would like to take the following into consideration when reading opinions of the participants of the test. Majority of those involved in the blind ABX test were also present in the control room during the calibarations, test setup, transfers from 2" to Pro Tools and Radar as well as Steve's mix. I hardly would call this part of the proceeding a "test" as most were openly expressing their opinions of what they were hearing and KNEW WHAT SYSTEM WAS BEING PLAYED BACK AT THE TIME THEY WERE EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS. I was asked at least 3-4 times during each transfer on what configuration was being used and then heard the opinion of whoever asked me of what they thought about the sound of this system compared to whatever they heard before.
Please download the test files for yourself and see what YOU can hear it. I will post the results of the ABX blind test as soon as we agree on when to post them and you'll be able to see what was heard without the knowledge/bias of what system was played back. To be fair and unbiased only the ABX test part and YOUR listening experienced should be discussed.

Azuolas

[Tidewater]

I liked the British test better.

I was shocked at the program used. I am not sure why pure transient tones weren't used.

After sitting in a NULL, and just hearing it all from begining to end once, 6 sounded not as trashy, and had more lowend. (YMWV-without a doubt)

It sounds to me like Pepsi, and Coke got together for a taste test, added 2 drops of lemmon in each serving, did not reveal which was which, then told the test subjects to buy 2 cases of each, and make your own decision.

I am convinced of one thing; you guys live to argue.



M

[Curve Dominant]

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:33

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.

Mr. Albini,

Just to clarify:
1) Out of all the esteemed sets of professional audo ears in that control room, you were the ONLY person who heard "the problem."
2) In spite of that fact, you declined to take the available test which would have proved and documented your ability to discern "the problem" in a scientific fashion.

True? That IS what you posted.

If that's so, doesn't that strike you as a monumental oversight on your part - that you failed to record your perceptions as you now claim they were, in a test which has attracted so much attention in the audio engineering community which you value yourself a part of?

Doesn't it also strike you as disingenuous to now deny the unanimous SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED results arrived at by your peers with an opinion that can only be taken as antectdotal - because you never took the blind test??

And finally, can you understand why your peers in the audio industry may have a dim view on your conduct as such - that is, your casting doubt on the results a scientific test by making antecdotal claims after the fact which cannot be objectively confirmed in any way?

Put another way: As you are an engineer with an avowed propensity for meticulousness and attention to detail, do you not recognize the inherent paradox of your conduct in this matter?

I pose these questions to you with an open mind, and await your response.

[rnicklaus]

DivideByZero wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:30

After sitting in a node, and just hearing it all from begining to end once, 6 sounded not as trashy, and had more lowend. (YMWV-without a doubt) M

Whatever the outcome, you gotta love the spread on the drums.  The driving groove and sound in the first half of the loop.  Insane. On fire.

Don't dismiss the lower midrange in these files - some of that could be masking other frequencies. Is there more or less bottom on this file or that file - or is there a lower midrange difference?

Just a thought.

[rnicklaus]

Curve Dominant wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:51

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:33 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. Mr. Albini, Just to clarify: 1) Out of all the esteemed sets of professional audo ears in that control room, you were the ONLY person who heard "the problem." 2) In spite of that fact, you declined to take the available test which would have proved and documented your ability to discern "the problem" in a scientific fashion. True? That IS what you posted. If that's so, doesn't that strike you as a monumental oversight on your part - that you failed to record your perceptions as you now claim they were, in a test which has attracted so much attention in the audio engineering community which you value yourself a part of? Doesn't it also strike you as disingenuous to now deny the unanimous SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED results arrived at by your peers with an opinion that can only be taken as antectdotal - because you never took the blind test?? And finally, can you understand why your peers in the audio industry may have a dim view on your conduct as such - that is, your casting doubt on the results a scientific test by making antecdotal claims after the fact which cannot be objectively confirmed in any way? Put another way: As you are an engineer with an avowed propensity for meticulousness and attention to detail, do you not recognize the inherent paradox of your conduct in this matter? I pose these questions to you with an open mind, and await your response.

Hang on a second...  Do we really know who else was in the control room and the level of esteemedness(is this a word?)?

What other test could have been done other than to lay down the files?