IMO in order to maximise any recording platform, different treatments of the source signal have to be used on the way in. If you just record the same signal to each medium, one of them will suffer as not being recorded "properly". You have to treat the recording chain for digital different than the the recording chain for analog, in order to make them both sound good. "Good sound" is different in the ears of different listeners, so that test would end up just being an opinion not a result.
just my
Logged
"I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2005, 04:13:07 PM »
Only today could I bear to actually open this thread and read it.
Now I wish I had abstained.
Firstly, can no one on these Fora spell?
Secondly (and this is basically the same thing Michael talked about), a test wherein the exact same signals are fed to both a two inch analogue machine, and a Protools stock machine, means absolutely nothing to me.
I use and enjoy both media, but I employ totally different techniques between the two. My criteria for a session may well be totally different when recording to multitrack digital than they are when recording to multitrack analogue. This might extend all the way from the choice of microphones, through the choice and variance of equalisation or compression employed, to the relative level at which the signal is recorded. The only such test which might be meaningful to me would be one wherein the same exact session was tracked and overdubbed AT THE SAME TIME on two completely separate [please note the "A" carefully placed within the word so often spelled incorrectly...by the way, just remember that there's "a rat" right in the middle of "separate"], but matching consoles (or perhaps either "side" of the same large one), with the microphones chosen and placed according to the engineer's and the medium's requirements, and recorded at the optimum operating levels for either medium. Then a comparison of the resultant remixes (whether performed "in the box," or "analogically" through one, or the two, consoles, and recorded on the medium of choice, and played back in final form at exact matching levels) would be the only true comparison of how well either machine performed throughout the entire process.
Thirdly, do you plan on recording to 16 track, or to 24? I believe there is a difference between the two, and that difference is most noticeable in the representation of the low frequencies.
Do you plan to record at 15 ips, or at 30? Again, there are differences (see above), with the added possibility of increased noise.
Do you plan to use stock Digidesign converters, or Lavry's, or Myteks, or UA's, or perhaps Alesis? Again there are differences.
Will you use only outboard A>D, or both A>D and D>A?
Will you be mixing "in the box," or through a console? Again, differences abound.
Will you allow plug-ins only, or plug-ins combined with analogue hardware outboard, or will you disallow plug-in's for the digital recording?
How about outboard allowances for the analogue?
What about reverberation? The same for both media, or will only certain ones be allowable for either?
I think there are too many variables here for me to accept any such test as Gospel.
I have worked very hard for years now to attain better quality within the digital domain. I love analogue, having used it with varying degrees of success for many years, all the way from the mono and two track era, through to multiple 24 track two inch machines, synced together. But the constant availability of such a platform over time is a tenuous situation, at best.
I keep all of my machines in as pristeen a shape as possible, and they will certainly work for quite a while longer, given the availability of the medium upon which to record (which is also cast into some doubt). But over 95% of our clients here DEMAND Protools. Not Nuendo. Not SAW. Not MOTU. Not RADAR. We rarely even turn on our Studers anymore. So I MUST employ the digital realm to as high a degree as possible. And I am more and more satisfied with it every time I make an improvement in either my technique, or in the hardware which I use, or in the conversion factor, etc. I will continue to seek improvement, no matter which platform I use. I am just as happy now with the final sound quality recording in digital as I have ever been with the analogue world.
But not more so.
Quite yet...
As for convenience and ease of manipulation...
Need anyone even say it?
Logged
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2005, 04:22:52 PM »
Did Mixerman already do the test? I'm gathering from the conversation that he must have already done the tests and came across a problem. Did he post the files of his test somewhere on the net? I've never run that test and would love to hear the resulting files.
Logged
The Resonater
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2005, 04:44:01 PM »
| compasspnt wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 22:13 |
Only today could I bear to actually open this thread and read it.
Now I wish I had abstained.
Firstly, can no one on these Fora spell?
|
In french, yes. In English, I do my best. | Quote: |
Secondly (and this is basically the same thing Michael talked about), a test wherein the exact same signals are fed to both a two inch analogue machine, and a Protools stock machine, means absolutely nothing to me.
|
Only responding to people doubting a bass loss during transfer with stock PT converters: an experience Mixerman has detailed and caused people to argue endlessly in internet audio forums (forae ???) | Quote: |
I use and enjoy both media, but I employ totally different techniques between the two. My criteria for a session may well be totally different when recording to multitrack digital than they are when recording to multitrack analogue. This might extend all the way from the choice of microphones, through the choice and variance of equalisation or compression employed, to the relative level at which the signal is recorded.
|
Couldn't agree more, I have been saying this ad nauseum from the recpit time to now. malice
Logged
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2005, 07:24:35 PM »
thanks Terry,well said
If you guys are having fun with this test ..so be it ..have at it ...
you have waaay more spare time on your hands then me
I find looking up my own ass to see if I can see things a little clearer never made me any wiser. Only, that one starts to really know that we don't know our ass from a hole in the ground.
For me tests are just that
an exercise in trying to either prove someone right or prove someone wrong
In the past few years I have recorded to HD protools, 16 track 2inch, 24 track 2 inch
2inch 8 track, 2 two inch 8 track machines locked, Sonoma DSD and Pyramix DSD
Radar , Sony 3348 and Nuendo
I cannot remember if at any point the band stopped a performance to exclaim " This Format Rocks Dude !!"
or
" Hey, man I can't play this song today, your format sucks"
" Hey dude, this would be a waay better song if it was on 2inch !!"
"Ross, thanks dude,that DSD sure was good today"
whatever works guys ....
Logged
The practice of forgiveness is our most important contribution to the healing of the world. The standard of success in life isn't the things. It isn't the money or the stuff. It is absolutely the amount of joy that you feel. www.hoaxproductions.com
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2005, 07:33:36 PM »
We went kicking and screaming into the digital realm at our shop but you either adapt or die. We chose to adapt.
Bob O has a very interesting point and it makes sense even from a luddite point of view.
Logged
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2005, 02:51:01 AM »
| RKrizman wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 08:23 |
| Fibes wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 19:33 |
Bob O has a very interesting point and it makes sense even from a luddite point of view.
|
He's talking about 888's, right? Is that what this is all about?
We might as well be arguing about ADATs.
-R
|
Didn't Mixerman experiment this problem with 888 as well ? All this thread is not about wether you can or cannot use PT, it's about if Mixerman was right when he experimented a bass loss after a transfer. You guys floors me, you start a thread to prove him wrong, and you change the parameters in every post you make. You call bullshitt on a respected audio professional, then you talk about recording reason tracks and listening them through third party converters. Terry and Ross are just right about all this, we won't have time for this shit. I'm recording on ADAT if I don't have anything better, that was not the point. My 451s are dusting in the closet, but my ribbons are more shinny than ever since I record with PT. Of course there are workarounds. But you have to know the limitations of the medium you record with to use them. Knowing the flaws of PT will help you recording better. Since I know this one, I stopped messing with unusual transfers. I chose to record on a Studer if I know I can afford to mix on a Studer. Again, if you want to call bullshit on Mixerman, simply redo the experiment as he stated. Or drop it. malice
Logged
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2005, 07:48:11 AM »
Hi guys.
As one of the administrators of this forum we were both anxious and apprehensive about this thread. One thing I would like everyone to do from here on out is to discuss the parameters of Ron's upcoming test, and methodology for this experiment.
We have had a good quanitity of banter as to the validity of any such testing [as should be stated], but now we need to get down to some 'nuts and bolts'.
These nuts and bolts WILL NOT include the spelling [or misspelling] of "Bonsoir"; discussions of previous tests where the methodology of that test is not discussed in detail.
Because of the desire of the forum administration to keep this brutally "on topic", any post that seems to wander from the original premise, or does not raise an "on topic" point will be removed. Both Mr. Blackwood and myself, along with the regular forum moderators will be watching this thread to insure that it stays on topic, and NEVER gets into personal/ad hominem attacks. I know we're just a bunch of recording engineers... but if we're going to play 'backyard scientist' for an afternoon, then let's play the whole game and do this with a somewhat detached lack of emotion.
If anyone is pissed off by my removal of one or part of their posts, please take it up with me directly. If there is any whole or part of a post that has been removed, assume it has been removed by me... or should I say "moi".
Peace.
Logged
CN Fletcher mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too. It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2005, 08:18:50 AM »
So... let's try to summarize here...
Mixerman found a lack of perceived 50Hz in a PTHD recording when audio was transfered from 2" 24 [30ips] to PTHD through their 192 converters.
Bob Ohlson has asserted on a different thread that is referenced in this thread that the possible cause of this low end loss, or perceived loss, could be due to the 888 converter units running out of "current on demand" capability which would indeed cause the low end to suffer. The parallel being that other Digi-Design product, like the 192 HD converters also suffer from this lack of "current on demand" malady.
The point has been made by two of the moderators of this forum that no one has ever been seen walking down the street humming the storage medium [and they are correct]. Digital audio, Pro-Tools in particular, is a part of our existance... a tool from which we have no escape no matter the format employed... at some point you're going to end up having to shake hands with Pro-Tools. Point taken.
My personal guess as to why MM perceived the loss at 50Hz is a phase issue... where the low end is being filtered too high on the way into the 192 HD boxes which causes the low frequency element of the signal to be slowed on it's way out the speakers... which causes the midrange to appear first... which is why I hear a "gank" in that system... which is why we perceive things like most transformers to be "warm" and "large" because they allow the low frequency content to pass first... slowing the midrange and high end elements of the audio.
I believe that a series of tests can be conceived that while they will "prove" nothing, will perhaps either debunk the Mixerman lack of low end myth, or support the premise. The cause of that perception of lack of lowend could stem from any of several testable and palpable flaws, which [if they gave a shit] Digi-Design could fix in the next revision of their hardware [which you know is just around the corner], or serve to show that their shit doesn't stink as much as "Digi" detractors would like you to believe.
Being a personal proponent of the RADAR V format, I would like to see it included in this maylay... but that is just a personal preference.
So... how does this sound for a potential methodology...
Take a session that was [well] recorded to tape and do a direct transfer to PT and/or RADAR and/or PT with whatever 3rd party converters are available. Print the 1kHz alignment tone from the tape at the head of each digital transfer so the playback levels from each tested format can be repeated when playing back from PT; RADAR; 3rd Party Converters.
Switching only the cabling from the output of each format... bring the return of each format back into an analog desk where the 1 kHz level tone has been matched. Print a balance through a set of agreed upon converters to a hard disk recorder [that Alesis thing is a standard... isn't it?]. I can probably talk Mr. Lavry into loaning a set of the "Gold Series" converters for this [warning: conjecture] part of the test... I would think no one here would find this to be a "weak link"... would they?
How does this methodology appear?
Flaws with the thought process?
Logged
CN Fletcher mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too. It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2005, 10:27:58 AM »
I would add some kind of a high impedance buffer to the equation in order to sort out line amp current capability issues. Otherwise you've got a moving target where some gear combinations will sound great while others don't depending on particular combinations of input and output stages. Some loads are hard to drive and some gear can drive anything. I'm convinced this is why people's experiences can vary so much.
Logged
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2005, 10:38:59 AM »
| Quote: |
Mixerman found a lack of perceived 50Hz in a PTHD recording when audio was transfered from 2" 24 [30ips] to PTHD through their 192 converters.
|
If that is all we are going to test than let's change the tilte of this thread (Ron) and figure out ways to properly guage the results. As a "non-scientist" I would like to see the results/differneces at different levels which I beleive could help shed some light on the PSU issue. | Quote: |
My personal guess as to why MM perceived the loss at 50Hz is a phase issue... where the low end is being filtered too high on the way into the 192 HD boxes which causes the low frequency element of the signal to be slowed on it's way out the speakers... which causes the midrange to appear first... which is why I hear a "gank" in that system... which is why we perceive things like most transformers to be "warm" and "large" because they allow the low frequency content to pass first... slowing the midrange and high end elements of the audio.
|
I've alluded to this mid bump in the past and would like to hear a "scientists" approach for testing this. I won't even bother to ask that MOTU HD192 converters be used in the test although they are purported to have the same chip.
Logged
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2005, 10:59:24 AM »
It wouldn't be the chip... it's the analog electronics surrounding the chip especially, as Bob mentioned, the line drivers.
Logged
CN Fletcher mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too. It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2005, 11:52:58 AM »
Thanks for the summary Fletcher, and I agree with your proposed method but, why " with whatever 3rd party converters are available."
MM was using stock digi hd 192.
So, what do you think of a direct patch off the 2" to PT. Transferring while bypassing the console, by making the signal path a direct feed to HD. My feeling is the less involved in the chain, the better.This could possibly serve to eliminate Bob's "current on demand" theory as a possible contributing factor, which I feel is very a very valid and plausible thought. And if this is the case, I think from room to room,
equipped and wired differently, there could be many contributing factors that could cause something or nothing to happen during a transfer. Which would further support Bob's thought.
And, I agree with Fibe's. Let's focus on recreating what happened with MM Transfer. Are we just tracking drums, or a full rhythm section? i will re-title the thread.
Fletcher, would the converters and digital deck that CRC has on hand suffice for the final printed files?
Prism Dream AD-124 & Dream DA-1 Converters
HHB CDR 850 Recorder
P.S. I am no scientist either. That is why I am looking for input. I just want to get this to the point where we can all listen. I want the method to be clear and agreed on by all, so nobody can claim it did or did not happen for any reason.
Logged
"I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2005, 11:54:55 AM »
| Fletcher wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 10:59 |
It wouldn't be the chip... it's the analog electronics surrounding the chip especially, as Bob mentioned, the line drivers.
|
Which is why I'd like to hear the MOTU version... I have chosen to avoid PT it'd be nice to know (in scientific terms) if I'm actually getting a small benefit from it.
Logged
|
