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

[Fletcher]

Wireline wrote on Mon, 29 November 2010 21:22

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...

They're in the "listening" business - we're in the production business - there is a difference.  In "real terms" - I have a teenage daughter that loves music - as do many of her friends.  They mostly listen to vinyl.

So I asked the kid - what's the fascination with vinyl?  She looked at me like I had 3 heads and said "it sounds better".   At the same time - all the tools we have to make things "perfect" are often rejected by consumers.  "Auto - tune" has become a joke [have you seen some of the YouTube videos where they add "auto-tune" to political speeches?] - the countless wasted hours editing drums to "grids" also does nothing for the emotion of the music - and the kids can hear that, and vote with their disposable income.

There isn't a whole hell of a lot any of us can do about the lack of songwriting skills and lack of "innovation" in music that is released, there there sure as hell something we can do about the audio that accompanies the product... which is, after all is said and done, our job.

Peace.

[Wireline]

I wholeheartedly agree, Fletcher...100% and then some.  I'd guess your kids are way above the curve in coolness when it comes to understanding these things.

That aside, most people can tell the difference between a project done on a Behringer board and couple of Ratshack mics and one done at Dark Horse.  That's not was I was getting at - most people can't tell if the ADDA was Avid, Radar, Prism, Burl, or whatever.  Most can't tell if the console was Neve, API, etc.  Most can't hear the difference between an 1176, LA2, Retro 176, or any other hi end device on the lead vocal...

All these things do is to enhance the production of the song.  Most end consumers I interact with can tell the difference between an RNC and say, a Behringer Autocom, in a mix, or a kick drum done with a Peluso 2247 instead of a Shure SM57...

Yes, I think we should strive for the best we can get...my point was that at a certain level of gear excellence, I believe that at some point the time and money invested in worrying about which ADDA, which capacitors in a certain device, or the color of the knobs becomes pretty counter productive, taking away from the actual "rolling" time spent with clients.

Since we are discussing, too many people have preconceived notions that the sounds they heard on vinyl are available at the push of a button, and that their mastered CD should sound exactly like an LP.  When I explain RIAA curves, they blankly stare into outer space and ask for the plug in to fix it; and then complain because it doesn't make the windows of their cars rattle

[KB_S1]

Performance is of course the most important part of the recording chain but, how is the performer affected by the quality of the sound?

It makes sense to me that the better the sound that the performer hears, the better the performance they will give.

At the same time this is imo why maintenance of equipment is of upmost importance.
Never do you want a performer interrupted by faulty gear.
If you can't afford to maintain it in perfect working order then you can't afford it.

[Barry Hufker]

An excellent point.  It's more "what doesn't the performer hear".  There should be no distractions from the performance and faulty gear should not be allowed to detract from performance (although of course it does get heard because that's life).

[Fletcher]

Wireline wrote on Tue, 30 November 2010 09:15

I believe that at some point the time and money invested in worrying about which ADDA, which capacitors in a certain device, or the color of the knobs becomes pretty counter productive, taking away from the actual "rolling" time spent with clients.

Relegating the A/D- D/A system to the realm of capacitors, metal film resistors, etc. isn't the same ballpark [and as Jules Winfield would add -- "its not even the same sport"] - its like putting the automotive performance discussion of 8 cylinders vs. 12 cylinders into the same realm of Xenon vs. Halogen headlights.  

A/D-D/A systems vary the sound greatly, components [caps, resistors, NOS tubes] also vary the sound, but not on quite the same level of scale.

Peace.

[Tomas Danko]

Nicholas, Radar sounds better than ProTools for sure. But it's not due to any "non bit-transparency". There are more obvious design differences to spot, and several of them too, before we even venture in to 01101100110 land.

You might want to get this, and get schooled. I have, and got schooled. As I know several highly esteemed people in here have.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_ id/32?osCsid=2356fc5a777d5c44ea586ca37cb2ed1b

I won't spoil it for you, but you're wrong about the math.

[breathe]

I'm totally not boasting here, because I wasn't using anything special, but when I recorded an improv jazz-ish band featuring Mike Watt on bass in August, Mike told me the headphone feed he was given was the best he'd ever heard.

Headphone chain: Pro Tools track aux sends to 4 bus tracks, each with Waves Renaissance compressors on them -> Each bus track out to Apogee DA-16X channels -> Mogami snake'd custom stagebox -> Furman HDS-6 headphone system in performance room, with individual Furman HR-6 satellite mixers for each musician.  I've been using the Furman headphone system since 2004, but I'm wondering if feeding it directly from the Apogee DACs was better than using an analog mixer's aux sends to feed it (which is how I did it with my Yamaha PM-2000 in Portland)?  Also, I've heard the digital headphone "more-me" systems have latency issues, which you don't have to deal with the Furman.

Nicholas

KB_S1 wrote on Tue, 30 November 2010 06:45

It makes sense to me that the better the sound that the performer hears, the better the performance they will give.

[cgc]

Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 30 November 2010 14:18

I won't spoil it for you, but you're wrong about the math.

I'll save him the $12.95: PT, Logic, DP, etc all produced bit identical results.  It shouldn't come as any surprise that simple addition doesn't vary between applications, but audio people are so determined to impart voodoo where none exists that threads like this keep coming up.

[Tomas Danko]

cgc wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 03:48

Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 30 November 2010 14:18 I won't spoil it for you, but you're wrong about the math. I'll save him the $12.95: PT, Logic, DP, etc all produced bit identical results.  It shouldn't come as any surprise that simple addition doesn't vary between applications, but audio people are so determined to impart voodoo where none exists that threads like this keep coming up.

True that.

But what I really wanted Nicholas to do, was to A/B listen blindly on all the tracks and make notes on how they differ in sound first.

Two hours later, with lots of detailed notes about how they differ in sound due to jitter and what not, and he gets to read the final result.

I was hoping the resulting mind fuck would take him to the next level, kind of...