R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Total Members Voted: 0


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Poll:Mixerman's 3 file request .Is there severe bass loss in any of these?If so,pick which one it is  (Read 25044 times)

azuolas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28

Files 10-12 have been posted. Please use the same login info as in 9 file test but this time go to the folder named "3 file test".
There are there files from the set of 9 posted earlier. These are Nuendo prints from Friday (15 second clips). The three files are (in random order) Analog 2", Radar 48KHz, Pro Tools 48KHz SYNC

Azuolas
Logged

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859

Maybe both "sides" can call their respective cohorts to discuss clues and put the files through a spectroproctograph to determine the severe loss of bottom end and make this a team event.
Logged
R.N.

Curve Dominant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 774

I just listened to all 3 examples. Twice. At low volume, and then at high volume.

They all sound equally bassy.

I detected no relative loss of bass in any of the three samples.

If this was Mixerman's ultimate challenge, he lost. None of the three examples sound bass-lite at all.

Now we can get back to making music.

trock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2018

as the self appointed home hobbyst here i of course cannot get them to play and get that codec error after downloading them to my desktop. trying to open in windows media player on an XP pro SP1 PC. also tried to open in real player with no luck

An audio codec is needed to play this file. To determine if this codec is available to download from the Web, click Web Help.

if anyone can help with this i will glady listen and add my 2 cents.
Logged

Malcolm Boyce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311

trock wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 22:30

as the self appointed home hobbyst here i of course cannot get them to play and get that codec error after downloading them to my desktop. trying to open in windows media player on an XP pro SP1 PC. also tried to open in real player with no luck

An audio codec is needed to play this file. To determine if this codec is available to download from the Web, click Web Help.

if anyone can help with this i will glady listen and add my 2 cents.


Try Winamp.  It can handle the 24/96 files.  
http://www.winamp.com/
Logged

jstuart

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61

I'll chime in: it seemed to me that 10 was just a bit "less" euphonic, low end wise, compared to 11 and 12. After repeated listens, I would posit 11 as the analog and 12 as the radar.

The biggest problem for me was the nature of the music, which had too much  distraction ( wheedly whee- guits, and too many kick notes to get a sense of a real tone... and a clankity bass guit), to simply listen to the recording-  metal is not my  bag; I've been doing a lot of classical and more simple pop/americana for the last year, so I may be a bit out of the loop.

J
Logged
Wiggling air molecules for a multitude of reasons, and in a variety of ways, for well over 30 years.

trock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2018

Home Hobbyst here

glad to report i figured out you had to match the 48/24 of the files with your DAW settings, when i had it on 44.1/24 it produced one HELL of a noise!

and then shut my DAW down! SWEET!

ok, ran it twice cause i didn;t want to get too caught up in trying to convince myself of something. listened only in headphones - sony MDR 7506

i do not use any of the platforms mentioned in the test. i loaded all 3 files into SAW, 10 on track 1, a little 3 sec space, then 11 on track 2, and finally 12 on track 3.. why? who knows, yes i could have put them all on track 1. however i am an amateur here who routinely does things the hard way

but i digress

10 had the most bass to me = analog

11 had a little less = Radar

12 had the least amount of low end = PT

hey great guitar playing by the way! miss that double bass kick thing too. like an early metallica/megadeath

and i do appreciate all that went into this, i understood about half but read it all, good and bad, enthralled

thanks for letting me participate
Logged

Rail Jon Rogut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 570

In SAWStudio place each file on a separate track, hit the solo button at the top of the MT and then you can just click on the track in the MT and it'll switch playback between the sound files (in solo).

Rail
Logged
Recording Engineer

www.platinumsamples.com

Engineered Drums for BFD & Superior Drummer 2.0

Daniel Farris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2439

I feel pretty confident that #10 is the analog transfer, and that #11 and #12 are ProTools and RADAR, respectively.

The differences are pretty subtle to my ear. Certainly not something I would worry too much about.
Logged

dragonfly

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3

I would choose 10 as the 2" tape, 11 as the PT, & 12 as RADAR.  It is challenging but I do hear differences. 10 sounds the most real and natural and has the most balls to me. 11 is more brittle, the attack of the tom roll sticks out more, the cymbals are more edgy - grating - less smooth & there seems to be less low bass. 12 seems almost identical to 10 but with a hair less impact. My listening environment is not the best - compromised room, Event 20/20 near fields and no sub so under the circumstances this is what I hear. I have not read any of the other posts of what people heard so I would not be at all influenced by others perceptions. It was a great move to do this test with 3 samples instead of all 9 as the 9 was just to much to compare without getting to fatigued and confused. I would say this test was subtle but when I really tuned in I felt I could hear differences and perhaps  my ears have made a fool out of me but these are my choices.
10  2" tape
11  Protools
12  Radar
Logged

Fibes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4306

Voted.

There is not a SEVERE bass loss on any of them so I chose the only option which signifies that there is not a SEVERE bass loss on any of the files. Does that mean they don't sound a wee bit different? No. Much of the difference is in the low mids and high end, but that's not what we are here for.

I remember when folks would beat up on 2" decks and consoles that crapped the bed for myriad reasons. Those were the days.


Logged
Fibes
-------------------------------------------------
"You can like it, or not like it."
The Studio

  http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist ?id=155759887
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse2

dragonfly

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3

P.S.  I thinks the poll is rather unbalanced. It only gives you two extremes. Your choices are hear no difference or hear extreme bass loss. I can't say that I would choose either of those options but I choose "extreme bass loss" because I felt I heard a small amount of loss and I could hear a difference. There should be an in between on the poll.
Logged

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859

dragonfly wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 10:29

P.S.  I thinks the poll is rather unbalanced. It only gives you two extremes. Your choices are hear no difference or hear extreme bass loss. I can't say that I would choose either of those options but I choose "extreme bass loss" because I felt I heard a small amount of loss and I could hear a difference. There should be an in between on the poll.


That's a good point.  

It's pretty obvious to some that on these files there is no extreme bass loss.

Maybe it should be find which is the Pro Tools file - But then how does one adress the original and continued claim by Mixerman of severe - that is the question on how to do the poll.

The end has already hedged so why not take it to "do you hear any bass loss" and be done with it.
Logged
R.N.

smazur

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5

Took a quick second listen to the nine original files--with fresh ears on a slightly different setup. I ended up with a very different reaction and set of preferences. I can see why the original testers did so poorly on the 18 A/B/X tests. With so many variables, the more I listened, the more indiscernible and mushy it all became. "Psychoacoustics," as Arif Mardin would say.

With just the three files, it's somewhat easier to discern differences and retain those distinctions, and I'm having pretty good success blindly identifying each one. I'll guess that #12 is the analog, #10 is RADAR, #11 is Pro Tools SYNC. Directly comparing each of these three to the original nine...I think #12 is actually #6, #10 is probably #2, and #11 is #8. A far cry from my initial perceptions.

This was far from a definitive test, given that it is a rough mix generated from a dubious console, printed through yet another set of A/Ds. But it hasn't been a total waste of time, I don't think. The results are inconclusive, except to say there is no evidence to support the claim that the 192 categorically loses low end. This should be considered good news. There are refined differences between the different converters when paired with different clocks, and preference of one over the other is likely to change with every situation, programme, converter and environment. Any one of them could be made to sound "good", it's probably not a make or break decision, at least not in this instance. At this point no result would truly surprise me. I'm sold for now and ready to move on.

Done here.

-Steve
Logged
In-house engineers have home field advantage

spoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107

dragonfly wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 12:29

P.S.  I thinks the poll is rather unbalanced. It only gives you two extremes. Your choices are hear no difference or hear extreme bass loss. I can't say that I would choose either of those options but I choose "extreme bass loss" because I felt I heard a small amount of loss and I could hear a difference. There should be an in between on the poll.


True...but more importantly, if we are testing to see if transfers from 2" tape to PT looses balls then we should be listening to the 2" masters and the tranfered PT files.  This test is having them compared to yet a THIRD version of a digital medium...right...
Or am I missing something?  

I am not saying this comparison is without merit, but it does not offer the means to evaluate the original claim...again unless I missed something.

Respectfully,
spoon
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 32 queries.