Print

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

[Mixerman]

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:03

digiengineer wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:44 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. 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

[rnicklaus]

Mixerman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:41

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:03 digiengineer wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:44 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. 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

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.

[digiengineer]

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

[Tidewater]

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

[rnicklaus]

digiengineer wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 02:56

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

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.

[Mixerman]

This thread is for signing up. If you want to argue, criticize, or whatever, do it on the other thread. Come Friday night, sign-ups are done, and we will communicate off board. It is important for each person to send me a PM with email info. That includes Rob and Randy.

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

[J.J. Blair]

I volunteered my room in that other thread for an LA test.  The offer still stands.  Somebody will have to supply the RADAR.

[Rail Jon Rogut]

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).  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

[rnicklaus]

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..

[Mixerman]

I guess I haven't been clear. THis is supposed to be sign-ups only.  How simple is that?

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