Print

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

[Bob Boyd]

masterhse wrote on Fri, 30 September 2005 23:34

Bob Boyd wrote on Fri, 30 September 2005 19:10 As far as the real thing (like real tape)...  well, that's often the best.  The only advantage would be the adjustability and auditioning to how hard your hitting the units (or the plug) on the fly. How about if you insert it and play off of the repro head? It's realtime and adjustments can be made as desired.

Sure.  

My main point was that the digital version (of just about anything) gives you more options and flexibility than it's analog counterpart - good or bad.  Good tape on a great machine can yield great results.  The HEDD and Phoenix may yield something different but it will also give you a wider range of colors and options than one machine will.  I'm not saying one is better.  The one that's better is the one that makes the song you're working on sound the best.  It's just a point.

[Jim Williams]

dcollins wrote on Fri, 30 September 2005 13:28

Jim Williams wrote on Fri, 30 September 2005 09:22 I had one in the shop a couple of years ago. I gave it a run through. I found it had some technical problems when I popped it through the Audio Precision analyzer. Such as? DC

Noise and distortion were far and away beyond the specs for the Crystal converter chip. Clock leakage was also a problem.

So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's.

[Arf! Mastering]

Jim Williams wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 11:34

So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's.

I dunno, according to some the reason is artistic freedom.  Giving the client "what they want."  Or maybe it's just us unkewl old dudes not able to appreciate the "new" sound?

[TotalSonic]

Jim Williams wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 16:34

Noise and distortion were far and away beyond the specs for the Crystal converter chip. Clock leakage was also a problem. So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's.

I don't use the HEDD and in fact I've never even heard it - but my opinion is that the use of it has absolutely nothing to do with new releases being unlistenable.  First off - I'd say the perhaps the majority of mastering houses are not using the HEDD  - i.e. a lot of places are using converters by Prism, Lavry, dcs, Meitner, Mytek, Pacific Microsonics, Apogee, Benchmark and others instead.  Second off, based on a number of people's opinions whose ears I trust and whose body of work shows that they are capable of extremely high quality work it seems the HEDD is actually capable of very high quality results.  Again - not hearing it I can't confirm this - but the quality of work that I've heard from the people I know using it speaks for itself.

To me the trends most degrading to fidelity in mastering audio currently are the use of extreme amounts of digital peak limiting or the deliberate clipping done at the ADC.  These things are much more debilitating to the signal than converter choice ever will be.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[bblackwood]

Jim Williams wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 10:34

So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's.

Right, it's the gear's fault...

The HEDD's a great piece of gear, period.

[phist]

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 17:52

The HEDD's a great piece of gear, period.

do you use it just for conversion? if not how much of what(triode, pentode, tape)?

[bblackwood]

phist wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 16:14

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 17:52 The HEDD's a great piece of gear, period. do you use it just for conversion? if not how much of what(triode, pentode, tape)?

Always ADC, occasional DAC (rarely), rarely a setting of higher than 1-2 on the colors (when used, whic is most of the time)...

[Bob Boyd]

phist wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 16:14

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 17:52 The HEDD's a great piece of gear, period. do you use it just for conversion? if not how much of what(triode, pentode, tape)?

I don't even think about it being a converter.  In fact, I've never even listened to the converters in mine.  For 3 years, it's been an AES insert in my rig.

Jim, I don't know if you listened to it's processing or if you just measured it and put it aside.  You can hardly blame it for pulling audio down.  If anything, it lends to the music the kind of thing a seasoned ear would like!  That's the whole point.  If you didn't get that, you missed it's value altogether.

Records have never sounded worse because powerful tools are readily available to inexperienced hands and because extreme clipping is all over the place.

And Brad's absolutely right.  The HEDD 192 IS a great piece of gear.  Period.

[Yiannis]

HEDD is a great piece of gear.
Use it right  and you will be glad you bought it

I am
i own one with the new kit and it sounds great.
Better DA than before.
use all the time ADC-DAC   tracking-mixing-mastering.

made a friend of mine,apogee lover and owner shaking    

[jackthebear]

Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 01:34

Noise and distortion were far and away beyond the specs for the Crystal converter chip. Clock leakage was also a problem. So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's.

You're blaming the HEDD Jim????? And you've been doing this since the 60's???
What *exactly* were you doing in the 60's?? I hear the stuff was good back then...

C'mon Jim....really....you may have got a faulty one....it's very possible after all CS gear is handbuilt, not built by robots.....so human error is possible.

And I betacha that if you reported it as such it would have been rectified very very quickly.

THE HEDD RAWKS!!!!!!!! And so do Dave and Scott over there.

[Terry Demol]

Jim Williams wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 16:34

dcollins wrote on Fri, 30 September 2005 13:28 Jim Williams wrote on Fri, 30 September 2005 09:22 I had one in the shop a couple of years ago. I gave it a run through. I found it had some technical problems when I popped it through the Audio Precision analyzer. Such as? DC Noise and distortion were far and away beyond the specs for the Crystal converter chip. Clock leakage was also a problem. So, mastering guys, is this why these new releases are un-listenable? To me, records have never sounded worse. And I've been doing this since the 60's.

Distortion seekers...

Has anyone actually measured how much H2 or H3 the HEDD
can add and in what increments?

Our own tests with H2 / H3 'enhancers', but done in the
analog domain, resulted:

a)you don't need much, for eg 0.005% or so H3 is quite audible and can sound great when done correctly

b)often H3 sounds better than H2, I believe Nelson Pass
is also of this view, stands to reason when you look at the
OP spectrum of his amps.

Cheers,

Terry  

[bobkatz]

I've measured it. Very very small and delicate increments. If you are looking for a nice "tetch" go for 0 through 2 at the very most.

5 or 6 on the tape knob VERY VERY approximately equates with 250 nW/m GP9 in approximate "sound of the saturation". But the distribution and the sonic characteristics are quite different from analog tape and it tends to sound "clogged" compared with GP9 at those "extreme" settings.

I can't recall exceeding about 2 or even 3 in extreme cases as I find that "other solutions" including "real" analog compressors coupled with, if necessary, a "tetch" of Hedd, sound better than too much. But isn't that the case in all work? Unless you are going for some special effect and don't care about the artifacts.


BK

[mikepecchio]

bobkatz wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 19:15

I find that "other solutions" including "real" analog compressors coupled with, if necessary, a "tetch" of Hedd, sound better than too much. But isn't that the case in all work? BK

yeah, what about real tape?  Does anyone here bounce songs off tape with any regularity?  I don't, but I did it last week for some digitally recorded rock and it worked really well.  nothing special, 1/4 2-track, 456, conservative levels. it tamed the clicky attack of the drums without dulling the sound at all.  the band loved it.

mike

[jackthebear]

I've had mixed success with doing that. Nothing beats actually mixing to tape THEN mastering from that.

FWIW.

Cheers,

[lowland]

jackthebear wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 23:23

C'mon Jim....really....you may have got a faulty one....it's very possible after all CS gear is handbuilt, not built by robots.....so human error is possible. And I betacha that if you reported it as such it would have been rectified very very quickly.

Exactly the point I was going to make, Jim - we occasionally hear of faulty units, so perhaps the one you tested was out of spec.

There are some experienced listeners with serious track records here saying that it works for them - perhaps you should take another look at the HEDD.