Print

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

Total Members Voted: 0

[rnicklaus]

smazur wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 10:37

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. Done here. -Steve

The pro tools file is internal clock.

Although I am not done yet, I am leaning towards 11 as analog. But this isn't even what I am supposed to be looking for.  Because I believe one has a tad more low end, I am assuming it is analog.

It may be RADAR who knows?

I need to find the one with the least bottom end - that is the charge.

[rnicklaus]

spoon wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 10:40

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

The third version has been a given since the original claims.  It was meant to be.

[Marshman]

I could tell no difference on this system (work), listened with a subwoofer and headphones as well.

marshman

[Rail Jon Rogut]

smazur wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 10:37

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.

The definitive test is still coming if that's your issue -- they're going to post the RADAR and Pro Tools source files and we'll do an identical internal mix using a third party application (no A/D and D/A or clocking involved).. and then post those 2 stereo files.  That will remove the SSL, Lavry and Nuendo from the equation.

Rail

[smazur]

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 13:50

The pro tools file is internal clock.

You are correct sir. Guess I didn't read the first post in this thread close enough. I was confused, as in the other thread, azoulas stated "The 3 configurations would be:
Analog, PT SYNC 48KHz, Radar 48KHz" then asked "Is 48KHz PT SYNC configuration acceptable to all involved?" which garnered a couple of yes answers (as that is apparently the normal professional setup). When and why did we switch to internal?

My brain hurts.

[nwsoundman]

I have to go with here is no huge difference in the low end in the files. There are some slight differences. I monitored through NS10's in my repair shop. I shouldn't have to listen in one of the studios because this should be heard plain as day.

I am having a tough time with tracks 10 and 12. I bet track 11 is PT's and will have to go with track 10 being RADAR and track 12 being the 2". Track 10 was bit punchier to me but I have been mixing some RADAR stuff and I find it to be that way.


Kirk

[rnicklaus]

smazur wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 11:11

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 13:50 The pro tools file is internal clock. You are correct sir. Guess I didn't read the first post in this thread close enough. I was confused, as in the other thread, azoulas stated "The 3 configurations would be: Analog, PT SYNC 48KHz, Radar 48KHz" then asked "Is 48KHz PT SYNC configuration acceptable to all involved?" which garnered a couple of yes answers (as that is apparently the normal professional setup). When and why did we switch to internal? My brain hurts.

I believe Mixerman was using internal sync - so that's what this is about.

2", PT and RADAR as used in Mixerman's orignal complaint.

Why on Earth HE insisted on the 96K file tests only he knows.

[digiengineer]

My results:

10- Analog

11- PT. I felt there was a lose of bass response. Ignoring the term "severe", I voted this file to have the least. However, if anyone feels .75 to 1dB (estimated) less is severe, that's your call.

12- RADAR

azuolas, I'm a bit confused. Are the PT file 48k w/SYNC or 48k Int? You mentioned you it is 48k w/SYNC, but Ron said 48k Int.

[azuolas]

digiengineer wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 13:18

My results: 10- Analog 11- PT. I felt there was a lose of bass response. Ignoring the term "severe", I voted this file to have the least. However, if anyone feels .75 to 1dB (estimated) less is severe, that's your call. 12- RADAR azuolas, I'm a bit confused. Are the PT file 48k w/SYNC or 48k Int? You mentioned you it is 48k w/SYNC, but Ron said 48k Int.

Pro tools version is SYNC 48KHz. Its clearly stated in every one of my posts regarding the 3 file test.
Azuolas

[azuolas]

Mixerman wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 13:17

My long time friend Steve Gursky has died. On top of that I am in the middle of a crazy week with work that must be done before a holiday in which travel is involved. I have spent the time that I had set aside to go through these files writing a eulogy, and setting up the celebration of Steve's life on my forums. He was known on these forums as Loudist, and he had made many, many friendships with the people of these boards. If you knew him, please post on my forum. There is a thread of silence, and there is a eulogy thread. In light of this, I would ask you all to extend the revealing date to next Wednesday. I will have had the chance to listen to these by then. I will probably be able to go through these at a proper studio on Monday, and I will post my thoughts then. Thanks, Mixerman

Given these circumstances are there any objections by the board to move the date revealing the answers to 9 and 3 file tests to Wednesday Nov 30th at 11PM CST?

Azuolas

[azuolas]

smazur wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 13:34

azuolas wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 14:25 Pro tools version is SYNC 48KHz. Its clearly stated in every one of my posts regarding the 3 file test. Azuolas Azoulas, In the first post in this thread it says: "the PT 48k internal clock pass" Which one is it?

Its SYNC 48KHz. Its noted in all MY posts related to this test. Other posts might mention something else.

[RKrizman]

azuolas wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 15:17

Its SYNC 48KHz. Its noted in all MY posts related to this test. Other posts might mention something else.

In the first post of the thread, in which this was announced by Ron Steele, it said PT Internal.  He also said only you know, so I'm assuming that it is in truth PT SYNCH.  I'm not familiar with this.  What is the clock source in such a situation?

-R

[rnicklaus]

RKrizman wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 13:04

azuolas wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 15:17 Its SYNC 48KHz. Its noted in all MY posts related to this test. Other posts might mention something else. In the first post of the thread, in which this was announced by Ron Steele, it said PT Internal.  He also said only you know, so I'm assuming that it is in truth PT SYNCH.  I'm not familiar with this.  What is the clock source in such a situation? -R

If it's not Loop Sync or Big Ben, then is it internal?

[RKrizman]

I can't take your poll because first of all, there is no serious bass loss, and secondly, I can hear differences.  I kept shuffling them up and listening blindly until I could identify all three reliably.

The easiest for me to identify is #11, which sounds like PT.  To my ears the quality of the midrange is the tell.  But this is the platform I'm currently most used to.

I think #10 is the fullest and most natural sounding.  Analog?

#12 is close to #10, but the low end has more of a "ringing" quality.  Radar?

Sorry, no glaring problems in my book.

Carry on.

-R

[Rail Jon Rogut]

I can't do the listening until I can use a D to A other than my 192's.  What D to A did you use Rick?

Rail