Print

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

[breathe]

I had a great pretty long phone conversation with iZ Corp's Barry Henderson last week and he SWORE TO GOD that Pro Tools is not bit transparent (and the Radar's are), which I suspected all along.  Like, according to Barry, recording into Pro Tools HD with an iZ ADA is a sonic compromise compared to recording into a Radar with the same converters!  

I'm actually really happy with my PTHD system.  Every time I work on it, I'm like, "Oh wow, I can do that?  I couldn't do that working in Sampliitude."  Pro Tools is just a really functional tool.  But it's not bit transparent, and neither is Samplitude, Logic, or Digital Performer in my strong opinion/direct experience.  ALL OF THESE DAW'S "sound" different, and you are free to call me a fool for saying that but I'm sticking to it.

THE WORST mistake engineers AND the music buying public made when digital recording hit the market was thinking a digital audio technology was somehow imbued with perfect transparency.  I'm just pissed off that I lack the intellectual aptitude to understand why, specifically, one digital audio technology sounds different than another.  I'm stuck with being a conspiracy theorist, and that's only fun when I'm stoned and paranoid.

Nicholas

[Otitis Media]

Barry's been around a long time, and he's a really decent guy. As for the rest of your post - you *do* realize that you're getting into esoterica. If you can't make it sound good with all that stuff you've got, you're doin' it wrong.

Also - seriously - without a song, none of this matters.

[MagnetoSound]

breathe wrote on Mon, 29 November 2010 14:56

I'm stuck with being a conspiracy theorist, and that's only fun when I'm stoned and paranoid.

I think you speak for a great many.

[seedyunderbelly.com]

Interesting as fetish yes applicable to music no, This non-sense is inspiring me to start making records on casette 8 track really.  

[Fletcher]

breathe wrote on Mon, 29 November 2010 09:56

I'm just pissed off that I lack the intellectual aptitude to understand why, specifically, one digital audio technology sounds different than another.

Because a DAW does all kinds of groovy "manipulation" things - which all require "math" -- some "math" is fuzzier than other "math" - but all "math" affects the "sound" of the final product.

Its not much different than the "sound" of tape machines, tape, consoles, microphones, etc., etc., etc.... its just that it affects the audio in the digital domain instead of the analog domain.

Hope this helps.

Peace.

[Harland]

I use mainly PT LE now but still use Cubase, which is the program I had originally. I use the 002 for both programs. But it's happened many times that on opening a Cubase session, I get a distinct feeling that I like the sound better. Can't really describe it, it's just like some little light going on which grabs my attention and interest and pleases me. Subtle, but there.

[Barry Hufker]

At Webster University we have RADAR 24 systems with Nyquist converters and PTHD 8 systems.  There is no question, in A/D and D/A tests, the RADAR systems put the PT systems to shame.

Barry

[KB_S1]

Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 29 November 2010 22:43

At Webster University we have RADAR 24 systems with Nyquist converters and PTHD 8 systems.  There is no question, in A/D and D/A tests, the RADAR systems put the PT systems to shame. Barry

What convertors on the PT system Barry?

[Barry Hufker]

I'll check and get back to you.

EDIT: I found out they're 192s...

Barry

[Wireline]

And yet again, no one on the consumer end of things really gives a crap about any of this.  They care about the songs.

You care...I care...I'd hazard a guess everyone on this forum cares...but in real terms, less than 5000 people on the face of the planet care, out the the billions that spend money on music.

I've yet to hear a recording or read a review that criticized the choice of ADDA, 2 bus compression, mic choice, etc, that seems to antagonize some of us...

If Radar is what you want, then get one, and ditch PT.  All the joys of tape, without the razor blades.  Do you think that would satisfy your quest?  If so, then do it, and don't look back

[Barry Hufker]

You're right of course the only thing which matters to any consumer in any industry is the product.  But as you said, *we care* so I am discussing this here with you.

There is a sound I want my recordings to have and it's a sound PT can't deliver (at least using PT converters).  Therefore I never use it.  Because the consumer *can* hear the difference even if they don't know what "it" is.  They don't care what made "it" or how long it took to get "it" but they notice when "it" is there or not.

If only the song mattered and not the arrangement, not the performance, not the recording, not the production, none of us would be having this discussion.  But it obviously does matter even to those who don't know it does or why it does.  

Ultimately it's part of "the vibe" - the "something" which makes a recording memorable and "great" rather than "listenable".  I think it's important not to denigrate this kind of discussion.

Barry

[seedyunderbelly.com]

It seems the IZ stuff is not on Mercenary's Page anymore,

How much does it cost to get a top of the top 24 track radar system these days___ also did they ever get closer to PT in  the editing department?   I remember Radar 2 was pretty far off in that regard  j

[Barry Hufker]

Last time I priced a RADAR with Nyquist converters it was around 18K.

It's important to understand that it was never iZ Technology's desire to make a DAW.  The RADAR is designed to be only one thing -- a bulletproof, great sounding recorder.  Barry Henderson doesn't want it to compete with PT or anything else like that.  RADAR is a digital multi-track recorder only.  He makes the case that you wouldn't ask an analog machine to run plug-ins.  You just want it to record/reproduce.  And that is what RADAR does.  Anything else it does is fairly primitive by other standards, but that's always been fine with me.  I transfer my audio files into a DAW for anything more.  Sophisticated editing can be done in a DAW and the files can be transferred back to RADAR.  And I always transfer my files from RADAR into the DAW for mixing.

Barry

[seedyunderbelly.com]

Hey Barry,

Did you mean you throw it back into radar for mixing?  
interesting

edit:
As inane as focusing SO much on the equipment goes, it is funny that this line of insanity reminded me that Radar is a fun way to work.. Not that I think it matters much.. other then creating a work flow that encourages working..

[Wireline]

In that regard, wouldn't the standalone Radar ADA be the magic bullet - all the conversion without the drives, machinery, and such?

For the record, the single finest recorded sound I've ever heard was Marcia Ball singing live (U67 - 1073) into the grand piano mic'd with a pair of 67s/1073s going into Radar at 96K, all at  at KLRU studio in Austin a few years back...Made a believer out of me then and there, until I found the combination of gear cost more than my house.

As good as it sounds, my client base doesn't have the time nor budgets to support me having one...same with a 24 track tape machine - 99.9% of people I encounter want it fast and pretty dadgum good, not slow and as good as it gets.


Jes opinion