R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => R/E/P Saloon => Topic started by: Dingo on November 19, 2005, 01:45:00 PM

Title: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Dingo on November 19, 2005, 01:45:00 PM
...is there a verdict?

Did you all reach a consensus - or did some hear something & others hear nothing?

Basically - did the group acertain that there was a hearable loss of bottom end (no matter how large or small) in PT - or not?
We're all dying to know - please share!

Dingo  Razz
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 01:50:51 PM
Fletcher posted a bit on the subject on the other thread that is now locked.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 02:10:21 PM
So far, the only info from the test is that PT didn't suck as bad as Fletcher thought it was going to suck.

Without knowing how much he thought it was going to suck, it's a bit difficult to get a feel for what happened.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 19, 2005, 02:12:19 PM
Since most Pro Tools users never experience any low end loss...  I'm sure they experienced normal converter sonic differences (as expected).

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Dingo on November 19, 2005, 02:23:03 PM
Granted, there was a little info:

1. Pro Tools sucked but not as bad a Fletcher thought it would...and sounded half decent with different converters.

2. There were dramatic differences heard during playback, which Fletcher believes won't be as predominant in the recorded files to be posted somewhere at a later date.

So what exactly were the "dramatic differences" heard during playback?

Was there a loss of low end from PT or not - I mean, that's what the test was all about, no?

Fletcher, Ron, Steve, GK, anyone willing to share?

Dingo
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: orbb on November 19, 2005, 02:39:29 PM
And who won the poker game?  How hot were the strippers?  Any pictures?  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 02:48:30 PM
Dingo wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 11:23

Granted, there was a little info:

1. Pro Tools sucked but not as bad a Fletcher thought it would...and sounded half decent with different converters.

2. There were dramatic differences heard during playback, which Fletcher believes won't be as predominant in the recorded files to be posted somewhere at a later date.

So what exactly were the "dramatic differences" heard during playback?

Was there a loss of low end from PT or not - I mean, that's what the test was all about, no?

Fletcher, Ron, Steve, GK, anyone willing to share?

Dingo


You seem to have read much more from Fletcher's post than I did.

Where did it say they used a different converter?

You are taking the word dramatic to a different level than just reading what is in the post IMHO.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 02:51:27 PM
Below is Fletcher's post from the other thread
 ------------------------------------------------------------ ----

Well the whole thing was pretty eye opening in some regards, at least to me. PT didn't suck nearly as much as I thought it was going to suck... and there were even some aspects of it [different clocking hardware] that were down right decent sounding... but I'm not going to get into any kind of a blow by blow... I'm sure someone else will do that.

There are files that have been recorded, though I don't believe the recorded files are quite as dramatic as the differences heard in live playback [which is an entirely different can of worms I seriously don't feel like opening at the moment!!].

There should be some files available sometime in the near future... when we have a place to put them we'll let you know.

This brings an end to this thread's broadcast day... hopefully one or more of the other participant's will post their observations... hopefully we'll be able to get the files in some kind of place where y'all can play at home and come to your own conclusions.

Thanks for spending the time to assist with the formulations of the various questions... but for now, I'm going to do what should have been done about a day ago [lock this thread]

Fletcher
Mercenary Audio

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Gannon Kashiwa on November 19, 2005, 03:18:52 PM
Hi all,

Here's how I thought it went.

Background:  We did tape to Pro Tools clocked to the 192 internal, SYNC I/O and Big Ben transfers at 48k and 96K and tape to Radar at 48k and 96k.  For the blind tests, we only listened to the PT transfers with the 192 internal clock (though we will post examples of all clocks for you to listen to and decide which ones you like best - blind, of course).  

There were 18 listeners in the room.  Prior to the blind tests, Steve asked the room if anyone detected a loss of low end as that's what originally set out to check.  Not a single hand went up.  It didn't seem like anybody heard a discernable loss of low frequency information at all.

Then we did the blind tests in "A/B/X" fashion.  We took 5 examples - tape, PT 48k, PT 96k, Radar 48k and Radar 96k - and paired them up as "A" and "B" in random pairs.  Sometimes it was tape and PT96k and other times it was Radar 48k and PT 96k - you get the idea.  18 passes were performed altogther where the operator would play a 15 second section of "A", a 15 second section of "B" then randomly select one or the other and play that back as "X".  The listeners then were to identify what they thought "X" was.  

Of the 18 passes, the room had a 50% accuracy in correctly identifying the "X".  The highest score in the room was 13 correct, the lowest was something like 4.  There are differences in the sounds of these exaples to be sure, but they are subtle enough that they can only be picked out half of the time which means it's pretty clear that all 5 of these formats are very comparable in sound.  Subtly different, yes, egregiously inaccurate, no.

That's my take on it.  I'm sure others will chime in with their impressions.  We still haven't sorted out how to deliver the files to y'all, but I'm suggesting posting 20 second excerpts (the same ones we listened to plus the clock alternatives) of the raw 24/96k files and create a poll of which ones you like best and why.  You woulndn't be able to do blind comparison tests, but you can certainly tell which ones you like best.  The files should be labeled "A", "B", "C", etc and put up for a week or so then revealed.

We'll figure that out and get them up asap.  There was also a movie of the whole thing.  I'm kicking myself for not taking any pictures!

I'd like to thank Ron Steele and the kind folks at CRC for generously hosting this thing.  Azoulas, Bruce, Chris, Chrisand the rest of the crew - you guys are awesome!  Also, Steve and Fletcher for providing the tape, headstack, Radar and making the test as scientific as possible - and for keeping an open mind!  I know I was there with and open mind and was very relieved to know that "we don't suck as much as Fletcher thought we did".  Smile

-GK

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 19, 2005, 03:26:59 PM
Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:18

Of the 18 passes, the room had a 50% accuracy in correctly identifying the "X".  The highest score in the room was 13 correct, the lowest was something like 4.

I don't remember the number needed to 'prove' one was statistically correct in hearing differences, but I think it's close to 80% - which means maybe one person heard the diff in these tests.

Unless the data as presented is inaccurate or incomplete.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 19, 2005, 03:55:50 PM
Here is MY findings of fact:


When Steve A. presented the room with the question on the bottom end, he asked the participants to raise their hands if they heard the suggested claim.

No hands went up.



We then proceeded to transfer the 2", PT using int. and ext. clock sources {digi sync i/o and big ben} at various sample rates, and Radar {int. clk} at 48 and 96. Participants were in and out of the control room during these transfers. There was certainly a lot of  opinions being discussed about the transfers, but they were more or less about overall sonic preferences of all the transfers as opposed the low end disappearing because of the DIGI 192.


After that we moved on to the blind test. We listened to 18 passes of A/B/X using the various transfered files all mixed up by Azoulas . We all kept a score sheet of our individual answers. After we tabulated the results {we found out AE's can't count to well} we found that the participants in the room were correct with their picks about half the time.

What this proved was, that on any given playback of any given transfer, the room could only pick X out around, give or take, 50% of the time, which tells me nothing sucked.


I find this to be very telling. I also feel that if we did a blind A/B/X test with just the 2", PT int. clk. at 48 and Radar at 48, we would get similar results. At least that would be my first guess.

Honestly, it was a great experience, and clear that we all hear and perceive sound differently, and everybody is certianly entitled to their opinion.

But in the end, I believe WE our responsible for the end product WE are creating, not the equipment manufactures. They provide us with choices, so if anybody thinks they sound like shit because of X piece of gear, it's time to find something that works better for you, or it's time to take a look in the mirror.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 19, 2005, 04:00:26 PM
Hi Ron

Out of interest.. how was the clock of the Big Ben wired to the system.. split to each 192 or only to the Sync I/O?  Apogee suggest that it should feed each 192 separately.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 19, 2005, 04:10:47 PM
Gannon,

Thanks for the general rundown on how the testing went.  From what you've already said, the day was really interesting, and I especially liked the A/B/x concept.  Hadn't seen that in the previous methodology threads.  Kool.

Obviously, if the *best* tester nailed 13 of 18, and the *worst* tester nailed 4 of 18, it indicates that there was most likely no clear consensus on picking the various formats.    Which may not be surprising, given that *perhaps* all of our ears may work a little differently OR that emotional bias creeps into the choosing of which format we're hearing.  Just like with wine, when you're tasting blind, it gets much harder to choose the $50.00 bottle from the $10.00 bottle.  So, obviously, the blind aspect of the testing was very important and may prove illuminating.

Hopefully, Steve, Fletcher, Ron et al will post more of their interpretations of the day and of the formats themselves.  Fletcher has posted a taste of his interpretation, but, given that he's given a lot of bandwidth to his pre-test feelings about the various formats, surely he'll give us a more thorough rundown on how the various formats sounded, etc.  He's probably working on it right now.  

So thanks again Gannon for your post and Ron, Steve and Fletcher, bring it on!  Inquiring minds want to know!

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 19, 2005, 04:15:37 PM
Quote:

Hi Ron

Out of interest.. how was the clock of the Big Ben wired to the system.. split to each 192 or only to the Sync I/O? Apogee suggest that it should feed each 192 separately.

Rail



Not quite sure my-self Rail. Gannon would know better then me as I was just the food and beverage manager.

I will tell you that I prefered the digi sync i/o over the big ben. It felt less hyped overall, if that makes any sense.

Ron
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 04:19:06 PM
Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 19, 2005, 04:23:46 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.





No way.   Smile

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 04:29:55 PM
jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.





No way.   Smile

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.




I hate to be a broken record but Slipperman claimed he mainly worked with DP except for a handful of times with PT.  So then this would fall out of the pro tools world and with him mainly in the motu, digital performer world.

What would be a less than ideal circumstance?  

Is there hedging already?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Slipperman on November 19, 2005, 04:32:29 PM
jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:23

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.





No way.   Smile

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.



Or it could be that I'm a deaf bastard... or seeing bears behind trees.

LMFBO.

I love it. I really do.

I think the above statement is more of a "probability" than a "possibility" given my abysmal track record.

Anyhoo.

Duping more crap from the 2" into the DAW today as I type this.

It's a savage justice out there... HOHOHO.

Best regards,

SM.




Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 19, 2005, 04:34:52 PM
Quote:

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion. And that's good to know.



First off it is highly unlikely that most of the listeners will show up here to post, as a lot of them don't even know about this forum.  That is the beauty of this test. All of these AE's our well established pro's in Chicago with long term experience on both digital and analog. They have never even heard of mixerman or his claim. These guys came in with no bias toward any format or opinion. They just listened. Pull me, Gannon, Fletcher and Steve out of the equation and test results are still very clear,  concise and to the point.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 19, 2005, 04:36:47 PM
Quote:

 or seeing bears behind trees.



I like to refer to it as the pink elephant in the sky. Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 19, 2005, 04:56:49 PM
[quote title=jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 21:23]
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

...it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  



Uh, yes, that's called OPERATOR ERROR.

But in fairness, I doubt that there's a single guy on this thread who hasn't at one point or another been guilty of operator error.  I know I have...many times.  And today's not even over yet.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 19, 2005, 05:06:11 PM
jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.



It proves that bad maintenance, inconsistent tape travel, bad cables and impedance mismatches should all be considered as possible issues when you're doing a transfer -- and don't let your preconceived bias stop you from actually doing your job.

"Great care" is what professionals get paid for -- every transfer requires "great care".

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 05:15:03 PM
jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.





No way.   Smile

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.



Everytime an audio engineer is making a record or doing transfers, great care must be taken at all times.  That is the job.


I know I learned my lessons WAY before Pro Tools was around.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: azuolas on November 19, 2005, 05:23:14 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 15:00

Hi Ron

Out of interest.. how was the clock of the Big Ben wired to the system.. split to each 192 or only to the Sync I/O?  Apogee suggest that it should feed each 192 separately.

Rail


Big Ben fed Word Clock to each unit (SYNC and 4 x 192 IOs). Loop Sync cables were removed each time we used Big Ben as a reference clock. Apogee is correct if you reference just the SYNC and then use Loop Sync for the 192 the clock distribution is not as good as if you pass WC to each unit.

Azuolas
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: azuolas on November 19, 2005, 05:31:53 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:06

jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23

All kidding aside, it should be noted that IF these tests showed no discernible level drop as Mixerman, Slipperman, and Bob Ohlsson (among others) have claimed can happen, it's not necessarily conclusive.  It is entirely possible that, in less than ideal circumstances, such a deviation from flatness can occur.  

What this test DOES seem to "prove" (again, if others' interpretations follow those of Ron & Gannon) is that, if great care is taken, a low frequency deviation is not a foregone conclusion.  And that's good to know.



It proves that bad maintenance, inconsistent tape travel, bad cables and impedance mismatches should all be considered as possible issues when you're doing a transfer -- and don't let your preconceived bias stop you from actually doing your job.

"Great care" is what professionals get paid for -- every transfer requires "great care".

Rail



I second Rail's statement here. In my opinion a good DAW system requires a proper and constant maintenance (we all know that each DAW has substantially more variables than a common 2"/console setup) and a decent operator. Its up to the operator to run through the clocking, preferences and other settings BEFORE starting the session. Many don't do this hence all the opinions and differnt results on these boards. In out tests we MADE SURE before every single pass that everything was set 100% to the spec and we had multiple parties check it to avoid an operator error.

Azuolas
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: electrical on November 19, 2005, 05:33:47 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.
I will post my thoughts when I have time to fully elaborate, but I cannot agree with your summation.

Short version: In the initial rough-mix test (what we were there to do), I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.

The "stored" mixes played back from Nuendo after everything was "printed" showed much less difference between storage media than the initial playbacks did. Even distinctions beteween different digital systems and clocking methods which were apparent to everyone in the room seemed to be much harder to discern from the "printed" versions. I realize this mitigates somewhat anyone's concern for "the low-end problem," but I still feel it is an unfortunate reality.

I will expand on this in a later post, because there is much more to say, but for now that's all I have time for.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 05:42:25 PM
electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:33

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

Obviously, Steve Albini hasn't posted his thoughts yet - but so far with Fletcher saying PT didn't suck nearly as much as he thought it would, combined with Gannon and Ron's posts (both went in on the side of no low end loss) it appears that the bottom octave being gone or the 6 db down at 50 or 60 hz description didn't happen.
I will post my thoughts when I have time to fully elaborate, but I cannot agree with your summation.

Short version: In the initial rough-mix test (what we were there to do), I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.

The "stored" mixes played back from Nuendo after everything was "printed" showed much less difference between storage media than the initial playbacks did. Even distinctions beteween different digital systems and clocking methods which were apparent to everyone in the room seemed to be much harder to discern from the "printed" versions. I realize this mitigates somewhat anyone's concern for "the low-end problem," but I still feel it is an unfortunate reality.

I will expand on this in a later post, because there is much more to say, but for now that's all I have time for.





As I posted, comments SO FAR - before your added conclusions and I stated that the posters to date had been from the no low end loss camp.

It will be interesting to hear what you have to say in total and to listen to the files.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 19, 2005, 05:47:59 PM
electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:33


I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.


Considering that was the main reason for the tests -- why didn't you raise your hand and do that test.  That's the only test I care about.

Mixerman stated in his original DUC thread -- that the RADAR transfer didn't have the low-end loss... So in theory then the RADAR playback should have been okay while the Pro Tools/192 playback should not have.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 19, 2005, 06:13:28 PM
I'd call bullshit, if I had any balls.

I won't speculate on motivations either, I'll just be quiet now, and have a funky opinion of someone.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 19, 2005, 06:16:16 PM
[quote title=electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:33]
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:19

In the initial rough-mix test (what we were there to do), I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.


Steve,

Thanks for your post.  I'm saddened to know that there might have been "drunken/boorish chatter" going on in a room in which we all hoped to learn something profound about our formats.  That's a drag.  I had thought that there were only to be a few in attendance, but from Ron's earlier post about their being a sizable contingency of Chicago-land AE's, I guess that wasn't the case.  Bummer.

It's also a shame that you weren't really allowed to do what the real purpose of the test was...that being, can a person reliably hear a low end drop when transferring from 2" tape to Pro Tools?  I agree with Rail, it's a shame that you couldn't have forced the issue and done some blind tests based on that premise only.

Thanks again for your time and effort on this, and I'm sure we'll all look forward to a more detailed analysis on the day's events and findings.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 06:52:37 PM
What are the thoughts on why the printed mixes don't show the differences that Steve Albini heard?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 19, 2005, 06:58:18 PM
Hard to believe that Steve Albini was too shy and intimidated by peer pressure to say "Hey, are you guys on crack, or what?", if the low frequency loss was so profound.

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 19, 2005, 07:01:27 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 17:52

What are the thoughts on why the printed mixes don't show the differences that Steve Albini heard?

First question would be:
- if the differences don't show up on further transfers (even through very good ADC's), then who cares? The final release in 99.99% of all records will be digital anyway...

Unless I'm missing something...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 19, 2005, 07:06:08 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:52

What are the thoughts on why the printed mixes don't show the differences that Steve Albini heard?





I said I would not speculate on motivations, and be quiet.



M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 07:08:14 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 15:58

Hard to believe that Steve Albini was too shy and intimidated by peer pressure to say "Hey, are you guys on crack, or what?", if the low frequency loss was so profound.

Steve


He may well have - the people who were there will need to give their take on that.

Was the rough mix test blind is one question...  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 19, 2005, 07:10:29 PM
Quote:

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:33


I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.



With all due respect Steve, you may have just managed to hang a dark cloud over the outcome of this event.  Your comment regarding the "drunken/boorish" chattering crowd in the room Confused  is an extremely unfair characterization of the professionals that showed up to listen, and a huge disappointment at the very least.

Unless of course i am misinterpreting this statement?Rolling Eyes

Nobody questioned or argued with you when you mentioned you felt the presence of the elephant in the room. The "drunken/boorish" chattering crowd clearly respected your opinion and thoughts, are they not entitled to theirs?


Also, no where did Gannon or I in our initial posts in this thread, say or imply you were apart of the majority when you posed the question on the low-end. We said you posed the question, and no hands in the room went up.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 07:10:47 PM
bblackwood wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:01

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 17:52

What are the thoughts on why the printed mixes don't show the differences that Steve Albini heard?

First question would be:
- if the differences don't show up on further transfers (even through very good ADC's), then who cares? The final release in 99.99% of all records will be digital anyway...

Unless I'm missing something...


The bottom octave? - Sorry, couldn't resist.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 19, 2005, 07:11:53 PM
Perhaps there was also some low end loss going into Nuendo, which would somewhat minimize the differences of the files once they were in that format.  That would seem a relatively logical conclusion, no?  And probably not totally unexpected.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 19, 2005, 07:16:36 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:08

Was the rough mix test blind is one question...  



Yes, good question...was the original rough mix comparison a blind test or was everyone aware of which was which during that test?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 07:17:02 PM
The Resonater wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:11

Perhaps there was also some low end loss going into Nuendo, which would somewhat minimize the differences of the files once they were in that format.  That would seem a relatively logical conclusion, no?  And probably not totally unexpected.


Could be... BUT one would think it would have been heard on the first playback.  Like, "Hey, that's not what went in".
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 19, 2005, 07:38:32 PM
Quote:

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:08

Was the rough mix test blind is one question...



Yes, good question...was the original rough mix comparison a blind test or was everyone aware of which was which during that test?



If you mean the initial test concerning the low-end, it was not listened to blind.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 07:40:36 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:38

Quote:

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:08

Was the rough mix test blind is one question...



Yes, good question...was the original rough mix comparison a blind test or was everyone aware of which was which during that test?



If you mean the initial test concerning the low-end, it was not listened to blind.


Did anyone at the test have a problem with the sound of the Nuendo playback before the blind tests, if you recall?

Title: If you are transferring 2" to PT (or another digital media...)
Post by: Jules on November 19, 2005, 07:53:05 PM
IMHO successfully "printing" sub harmonic data onto digital, namely PT is an art in itself. Without monitoring PT a/d & d/a of the 2" at the time of actually recording to the 2", the process is going to involve some sort of 'guesswork' or "assumption" as to how it will turn out once transferred, right?

You can kick, pound your fists on and shove a pinball machine until the tilt light comes on ... why not do what ya gotta do with 2" and PT transfers to make your ears happy (boost 50hz on the playback cards, add Phoenix plug ins whatever) and move on? Develop a method that you like.

Perhaps a little more 'sound engineering' from the sound engineers?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 19, 2005, 08:17:03 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:38

If you mean the initial test concerning the low-end, it was not listened to blind.


Ron,

It's easy for us to be armchair quarterbacks on Monday morning complaining about the game.  So, know that we do appreciate all the time and effort put in by everyone at the test.

I'm surprised that the initial low end test was not conducted blind, because it is only through blind tests that we can remove bias and emotions.  Steve is an admitted analog fan and in that light, his being apparently the only person in the room who heard the loss of low end "as plain as day" seems as though it *could* have to do with bias and emotion.  Nor should Steve be apologetic if that were true.  We all have preferences and we like to think that our preferences are *right*.  I'm not suggesting that this was the case, but it's an odd coincidence if it weren't at least partly involved.

I'm glad that you felt that at least the tests were not spoiled by a rowdy crowd preventing anyone from coming to any conclusions there.  The way Steve put it, you kind of have this picture of beer guzzling guys being loud during serious listening tests, and obviously, that's not how you saw it.  So, I'm glad to know it wasn't a total drunken windy-city sprawl...

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maccool on November 19, 2005, 08:37:50 PM
Mixerman, are you short?

I am short, and very sensitive to low frequency sound.

WTF?

Bear with me, I'm looking for a way into this...

I have followed this process with interest.  MM's assertion should be repeatable and testable.  The Chicago Test attempted this.  I have much admiration for the principals who brought the Test about.  But, methinks the slanging match has only just started.

Just to state the premise again;  Mixerman asserts that a transfer of audio from 2" tape to ProTools loses something at the lowest audible frequencies, the bottom octave. I hope I have that right.

Although the test files have yet to be posted, we do have some initial responses to the Chicago Test here on the REP, and at best they are inconclusive.  The assessments of the the sounds seem to be totally subjective.  AE #1 hears one thing, AE #2 hears something else.  This in itself is not surprising.  Surprising is the fact that nobody has addressed this element of the audition chain.  Some say that they can hear the low frequency loss, others say they can't.  Surely it is not difficult to measure the frequencies of the two recorded sources?  Given two source audio progammes, one reference microphone, and one frequency analyser, the physical attributes of each audio programme can be measured and compared. Once you introduce the real-live ears of people, then you introduce a whole other set of variables; you introduce subjectivity.

What the fuck was I talking about.....?

Oh yeah!  Now I remember.  I'm a short-arse, and I have a problem with low frequencies.

I don't think that this is a psycho-acoustic thing, I think that it's a physiognomic acoustic thing.  It's about how we're built.

For a long time I thought it was just me.  Wherever I was, listening to music, live or recorded, there was (and still is) too much bass.  For me, the way most folk have the bass just walks roughshod over all the good stuff.

And then, I had a conversation with and old friend of mine who is a first-class FOH soundman.  He has much experience with a band who were, are, very big in Japan.  He wasn't in the least surprised when I said that I find most concert sound to be too bass-heavy. It was he who told me that it's because I'm short.  When mixing his band in Japan he has a default bass level in mind on account of the generally short stature of the audience.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but I don't think that any rigorous conclusions can be drawn from the Chicago Test if those conclusions are based (no pun intended) solely on the ears of the attending AE's.  I have no gripe with the AE's, and they will doubtless tell it like they hear it, but those ears (good as they are) are uncalibrated.  If you're a short-arse like me you may hear a bass loss.  If you're  a longshanks, you may not.  And there you go, another minefield.

Whatever the outcome may be, my thanks to those who made this happen, and I hope that some good will come of it.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 09:07:27 PM
Yes Mixerman is short.

Like 5' 17" or so.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 19, 2005, 09:33:01 PM
Does the same thing happen if you get small?

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 19, 2005, 09:37:02 PM
maccool wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 20:37

 The assessments of the the sounds seem to be totally subjective.  AE #1 hears one thing, AE #2 hears something else.  


I think it's more like AE #1 hears one thing, AEs #2 - #18 hear something else.

Hard to believe all the other guys couldn't hear the "glaring" low end loss. Looking forward to more brilliant analysis.  

I can't believe you guys mixed to Nuendo and invalidated your whole experiment! (just kidding).

Hey, too bad you didn't mix all these formats to tape also, so you could eliminate digital itself as the culprit, whichh is really going to be the crux of the whole discussion.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 19, 2005, 09:43:17 PM
I've got two thoughts here:

1)  Weren't there some test tones run from the 2" into PT?  I mean, do we need to be relying on "ears" to perceive loss of low end.  Can't the 50hz tones help us determine if there is or there is not such a loss?  If 1k from the PT is coming back fine, and 50hz is down 6db, we know we have a problem, assuming that both tones were at 0db on their way into PT.

2)  Both Gannon and Ron reported that Steve asked the group if anyone perceived a loss of low end.  No one raised their hand.  Why didn't Steve at that point tell the crowd that he was perceiving a loss of low end?  Presumably, the testing could have paused long enough to check that out.  After all, that's the original reason for the test, and I don't understand why Steve didn't immediately raise issues rather than just allowing the tests to continue, after which he would declare "I heard the loss of low end, plain as day".  

Thoughts, anyone?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: azuolas on November 19, 2005, 09:44:50 PM
Hi,
Here some statistics from the test.
We had 18 ABX test passes. All were played back from Nuendo system through Lavry Blue DAC. There were 18 participants in the blind test procedure.
11 out of 18 tests had a result of 10 or more WRONG answers. WRONG = listeners were not able to (ie picked the wrong answer) or could not tell the difference/were not sure (ie picked X instead of A or B as answer).
7 out of 18 tests had a result of 10-13 of CORRECT answers.
I can post the results of each test with specifics of what was compared and how many answers were correct. Before I do this we should check with Fletcher, Steve Albini, Ron Steele and Gannon Kashiwa to see if it makes sense to have this data posted before the rest of you get a chance to listen to the results and post your responses. I am working on posting the same 15 second clips at 24/96 resultion in .wav format that were used in this test.
We have full song passes for all 9 configurations tested in 24 bit 96KHz print format:
1. Analog 2" 16 track
2. Radar 48KHz (internal clock)
3. Radar 96KHz (internal clock)
4. Pro Tools HD 48 KHz (192 loop sync clock)
5. Pro Tools HD 96 KHz (192 look sync clock)
6. Pro Tools HD 48 KHz (SYNC loop sync clock)
7. Pro Tools HD 96 KHz (SYNC loop sync clock)
8. Pro Tools HD 48 KHz (BIG BEN WC clock)
9. Pro Tools HD 96 KHz (BIG BEN WC clock)
I saved the source sessions of 4-9. Steve Albini has 1 and 2-3 went back on the drives that RADAR provided to us.
We also documented most of the proceedings on the DV tape (approx. 5 hours)
I am not sure how extensive we want to get with this on the board. I will be posting the same 15 second clips as used in this test on the FTP site for you to download. If there is a consesus that we should do something else please let me know and we'll see if we can make this available to as many as possible.

Azuolas
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 09:52:42 PM
The Resonater wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:43

I've got two thoughts here:

1)  Weren't there some test tones run from the 2" into PT?  I mean, do we need to be relying on "ears" to perceive loss of low end.  Can't the 50hz tones help us determine if there is or there is not such a loss?  If 1k from the PT is coming back fine, and 50hz is down 6db, we know we have a problem, assuming that both tones were at 0db on their way into PT.

2)  Both Gannon and Ron reported that Steve asked the group if anyone perceived a loss of low end.  No one raised their hand.  Why didn't Steve at that point tell the crowd that he was perceiving a loss of low end?  Presumably, the testing could have paused long enough to check that out.  After all, that's the original reason for the test, and I don't understand why Steve didn't immediately raise issues rather than just allowing the tests to continue, after which he would declare "I heard the loss of low end, plain as day".  

Thoughts, anyone?


Ron did post that Steve asked about what he heard as a loss to the room - The "felt the presence of an elephant in the room" part.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: crm0922 on November 19, 2005, 09:55:23 PM
Steve A, are you claiming that you heard the low-end loss on PT192 and NOT on RADAR?  Or a low-end loss going after a dump to either format?

The multiple-clocking device test was not a good idea.  The differences were mostly negligible, and it just gave 6 more possibilities to try to identify.

After even a few minutes of listening your perception of various frequencies changes because of how your ear tries to ignore background noise.  Ya know, like if you put one earplug in for 10 minutes and take it out, or listen to a one-sided headphone for an hour.

Simple, short A/B/X tests with everyone participating having a relatively "clean palate" (being in relative quietness for a while before) is how I would think better results could be obtained.

Chris
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 09:56:31 PM
RKrizman wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:37

maccool wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 20:37

 The assessments of the the sounds seem to be totally subjective.  AE #1 hears one thing, AE #2 hears something else.  


I think it's more like AE #1 hears one thing, AEs #2 - #18 hear something else.

Hard to believe all the other guys couldn't hear the "glaring" low end loss. Looking forward to more brilliant analysis.  

I can't believe you guys mixed to Nuendo and invalidated your whole experiment! (just kidding).

Hey, too bad you didn't mix all these formats to tape also, so you could eliminate digital itself as the culprit, whichh is really going to be the crux of the whole discussion.

-R


I look forward to Fletcher's take on why he didn't raise his hand when asked about hearing "the problem".  Was he not in the room? Could be.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 10:07:40 PM
RKrizman wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:33

Does the same thing happen if you get small?

-R


You become A WILD AND CRAZY GUY!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jlapointe on November 19, 2005, 10:19:44 PM
electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:33


Short version: In the initial rough-mix test (what we were there to do), I heard the low-end problem plain as day.



Were you in the exact same position in the room when you listened to the PT rough mixes as you were when you listened to the 2"?

- J.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: azuolas on November 19, 2005, 11:13:51 PM
For those that were not a part of the test yesterday I would like to take the following into consideration when reading opinions of the participants of the test. Majority of those involved in the blind ABX test were also present in the control room during the calibarations, test setup, transfers from 2" to Pro Tools and Radar as well as Steve's mix. I hardly would call this part of the proceeding a "test" as most were openly expressing their opinions of what they were hearing and KNEW WHAT SYSTEM WAS BEING PLAYED BACK AT THE TIME THEY WERE EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS. I was asked at least 3-4 times during each transfer on what configuration was being used and then heard the opinion of whoever asked me of what they thought about the sound of this system compared to whatever they heard before.
Please download the test files for yourself and see what YOU can hear it. I will post the results of the ABX blind test as soon as we agree on when to post them and you'll be able to see what was heard without the knowledge/bias of what system was played back. To be fair and unbiased only the ABX test part and YOUR listening experienced should be discussed.

Azuolas
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 01:30:30 AM
I liked the British test better.

I was shocked at the program used. I am not sure why pure transient tones weren't used.

After sitting in a NULL, and just hearing it all from begining to end once, 6 sounded not as trashy, and had more lowend. (YMWV-without a doubt)

It sounds to me like Pepsi, and Coke got together for a taste test, added 2 drops of lemmon in each serving, did not reveal which was which, then told the test subjects to buy 2 cases of each, and make your own decision.

I am convinced of one thing; you guys live to argue.

Wink

M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 20, 2005, 01:51:36 AM
electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:33

I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.


Mr. Albini,

Just to clarify:
1) Out of all the esteemed sets of professional audo ears in that control room, you were the ONLY person who heard "the problem."
2) In spite of that fact, you declined to take the available test which would have proved and documented your ability to discern "the problem" in a scientific fashion.

True? That IS what you posted.

If that's so, doesn't that strike you as a monumental oversight on your part - that you failed to record your perceptions as you now claim they were, in a test which has attracted so much attention in the audio engineering community which you value yourself a part of?

Doesn't it also strike you as disingenuous to now deny the unanimous SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED results arrived at by your peers with an opinion that can only be taken as antectdotal - because you never took the blind test??

And finally, can you understand why your peers in the audio industry may have a dim view on your conduct as such - that is, your casting doubt on the results a scientific test by making antecdotal claims after the fact which cannot be objectively confirmed in any way?

Put another way: As you are an engineer with an avowed propensity for meticulousness and attention to detail, do you not recognize the inherent paradox of your conduct in this matter?

I pose these questions to you with an open mind, and await your response.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 01:53:49 AM
DivideByZero wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:30



After sitting in a node, and just hearing it all from begining to end once, 6 sounded not as trashy, and had more lowend. (YMWV-without a doubt)


M



Whatever the outcome, you gotta love the spread on the drums.  The driving groove and sound in the first half of the loop.  Insane. On fire.

Don't dismiss the lower midrange in these files - some of that could be masking other frequencies. Is there more or less bottom on this file or that file - or is there a lower midrange difference?

Just a thought.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 02:01:06 AM
Curve Dominant wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:51

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:33

I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly.

I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.


Mr. Albini,

Just to clarify:
1) Out of all the esteemed sets of professional audo ears in that control room, you were the ONLY person who heard "the problem."
2) In spite of that fact, you declined to take the available test which would have proved and documented your ability to discern "the problem" in a scientific fashion.

True? That IS what you posted.

If that's so, doesn't that strike you as a monumental oversight on your part - that you failed to record your perceptions as you now claim they were, in a test which has attracted so much attention in the audio engineering community which you value yourself a part of?

Doesn't it also strike you as disingenuous to now deny the unanimous SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED results arrived at by your peers with an opinion that can only be taken as antectdotal - because you never took the blind test??

And finally, can you understand why your peers in the audio industry may have a dim view on your conduct as such - that is, your casting doubt on the results a scientific test by making antecdotal claims after the fact which cannot be objectively confirmed in any way?

Put another way: As you are an engineer with an avowed propensity for meticulousness and attention to detail, do you not recognize the inherent paradox of your conduct in this matter?

I pose these questions to you with an open mind, and await your response.



Hang on a second...  Do we really know who else was in the control room and the level of esteemedness(is this a word?)?

What other test could have been done other than to lay down the files?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 02:21:31 AM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 01:53



Whatever the outcome, you gotta love the spread on the drums.  The driving groove and sound in the first half of the loop.  Insane. On fire.

Don't dismiss the lower midrange in these files - some of that could be masking other frequencies. Is there more or less bottom on this file or that file - or is there a lower midrange difference?

Just a thought.


I am kind of confused by the selection of program for the test.

Heard it once on a set of Adams, sitting in a null. When one started, I said, "uhh... and then it's just going to be drums for the test, right?" Then two came up.. and I knew that this was going to lead to people getting together every year, to drink beer, and argue.

All that said, on one pass, SIX sounded to be less trashy in the highend (uhh.. all that sibly shit was driving me mad!) and had MORE 50/60 than all the others..

..but we talked over 2 and 3..


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 02:24:56 AM
DivideByZero wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 23:21

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 01:53



Whatever the outcome, you gotta love the spread on the drums.  The driving groove and sound in the first half of the loop.  Insane. On fire.

Don't dismiss the lower midrange in these files - some of that could be masking other frequencies. Is there more or less bottom on this file or that file - or is there a lower midrange difference?

Just a thought.


I am kind of confused by the selection of program for the test.

Heard it once on a set of Adams, sitting in a null. When one started, I said, "uhh... and then it's just going to be drums for the test, right?" Then two came up.. and I knew that this was going to lead to people getting together every year, to drink beer, and argue.

All that said, on one pass, SIX sounded to be less trashy in the highend (uhh.. all that sibly shit was driving me mad!) and had MORE 50/60 than all the others..

..but we talked over 2 and 3..


M



Sitting in a null?  Is that the opposite of the sweet spot?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 20, 2005, 02:45:32 AM
All I know.. is next time I'm sending my maid to the listening tests!  Laughing

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 02:48:41 AM
Sweet spots are neutral.. but I sat in the same null, head just above what I know to be 'the hell hole' in the room, but I didn't move.. like I said, we spun the files once, and left. I will d/l them here, and give der 1000s a listen.. but I am stll confused over the program.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 20, 2005, 02:49:34 AM
Yeah, which was it, a node or a null???  And what exactly are you talking about?

For the record, I think Mixerman probably did have a problem with a transfer, and lost some low end.  I'm just not sure it was due to the inherant "problem" with Pro Tools.  Wiring or an impedence mismatch seems more likely to me, but I wasn't there.

it is interesting to hear from those of you who were there for the event.

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on November 20, 2005, 02:58:40 AM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 08:49

Yeah, which was it, a node or a null???  And what exactly are you talking about?

For the record, I think Mixerman probably did have a problem with a transfer, and lost some low end.  I'm just not sure it was due to the inherant "problem" with Pro Tools.  Wiring or an impedence mismatch seems more likely to me, but I wasn't there.

it is interesting to hear from those of you who were there for the event.




Especially from Steve Albini,

I wonder what he heard and why it turned out that he did not raise his hand.
The whole purpose of this test was not about Mixerman seeing pink elephant or not, it's about what could have caused what he (and numerous of esteemed colleagues ) has heard.

I haven't check the posted chunks myself, I will do this afternoon, but I would love to have a full description of the event from the "rebels" camp as well as from the "empire" point of view (if I may borrow Fletcher's imagery).

malice


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 03:03:22 AM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 02:49

Yeah, which was it, a node or a null???  And what exactly are you talking about?

For the record, I think Mixerman probably did have a problem with a transfer, and lost some low end.  I'm just not sure it was due to the inherant "problem" with Pro Tools.  Wiring or an impedence mismatch seems more likely to me, but I wasn't there.

it is interesting to hear from those of you who were there for the event.

Steve




NULL

Here we go, a technicality I have introduced into the pot, that will NULL and void all previous tests, because I wasn't wearing a sheepskin condom on my nose.

Screw off.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 20, 2005, 03:09:37 AM
malice wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 23:58


The whole purpose of this test was not about Mixerman seeing pink elephant or not, it's about what could have caused what he (and numerous of esteemed colleagues ) has heard.


What Steve heard could not have been what Mixerman described as:

"In my listening test, the maid could hear the difference. The differences are egregious."

I've said it before -- I feel the issue was more than likely bad tape travel.  I've seen and heard the bottom end go away on badly tensioned 2" machines (or due to badly slitted tape) because of it.. rewinding and playing may sometimes fix the problem.  One has to investigate the maintenance history where the transfer was being done (hint).  All this was discussed in 2002 on the DUC thread(s).

 http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16& amp;  amp;Number=136049&Forum=All_Forums&Words=%2Btape%20%  2Btravel%20%2BRail&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=13  6008&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&dateran  ge=1&newerval=11&newertype=y&olderval=&older type=&bodyprev=#Post136049

http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16& amp;Number=132924&Forum=f16&Words=%2Bthicker%20%2Bfo rmulation%20%2BRail&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=1 32843&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&datera nge=1&newerval=11&newertype=y&olderval=&olde rtype=&bodyprev=#Post132924

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 03:49:16 AM
malice wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 23:58

Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 08:49

Yeah, which was it, a node or a null???  And what exactly are you talking about?

For the record, I think Mixerman probably did have a problem with a transfer, and lost some low end.  I'm just not sure it was due to the inherant "problem" with Pro Tools.  Wiring or an impedence mismatch seems more likely to me, but I wasn't there.

it is interesting to hear from those of you who were there for the event.




Especially from Steve Albini,

I wonder what he heard and why it turned out that he did not raise his hand.
The whole purpose of this test was not about Mixerman seeing pink elephant or not, it's about what could have caused what he (and numerous of esteemed colleagues ) has heard.

I haven't check the posted chunks myself, I will do this afternoon, but I would love to have a full description of the event from the "rebels" camp as well as from the "empire" point of view (if I may borrow Fletcher's imagery).

malice






At the risk of Mr. Albini correcting me -

I believe information has been given that he did in fact hear this issue when the rough mix was being done - doing the mix on 2" and then changing the inputs to the console to pro tools and RADAR outputs.

It was Mr. Albini who asked if anyone heard "the problem" and asked if so, to raise their hand.

I also believe we have information that he made it clear to the room of people that he did in fact hear the bottom being different.  If he also heard this on RADAR has not been discussed.

The issue to ponder is why this doesn't show up clearly on the mixes.

Two thoughts -

People knowing what format was being used during the rough mix tests somehow skewed their thoughts or

Something was goofy in the mix stage

Either way both "sides" have issues to hold on to.

In the end, most of us weren't there and have to go by what people who were there say and listen to the files.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: electrical on November 20, 2005, 03:55:22 AM
Okay, it's late and I intend to go to bed soon, so I am posting a few answers to questions my previous post raised. I still intend to post the long, tedious, pedantic, over-wrought complete dossier of my thoughts on the test. I know it will take me a matter of hours to compose my thoughts so they will be neither misunderstood nor misconstrued, and I want to be thorough. For now:

Why did I say nothing during the initial listening test about having heard the "bass problem?"

I did not want the test to be about me and what I thought I heard. There were a number of people in the room who were "compromised," in my mind, in that they should not voice an opinion on this issue because their presence carried some "official" weight. I was one, as was Fletcher, the staff of CRC, the Digidesign representatives, the Electrical Audio staff in attendance and Fletcher's Chicago associate. All of these people could be construed as having had some specific interest in the outcome of the "bass problem" test, and shouldn't (or at least didn't) express an opinion during the initial playback test.

For those of you not there, this group constituted the majority of the people in the room during the initial playback test, though others were there intermittantly, cycling through the lounge, etc. There were probably as many as 24 people there at any one moment, and as few as 14 at other moments. Someone from CRC could probably do a head count from the video tape, and that might be interesting. The core group of people in the control room for the bulk of these initial playbacks consisted of people who should not have expressed an opinion, and six or eight others. I am operating from memory here, and I would welcome clarification or confirmation from others who were there at the time.

When I asked the assembled group at the end of playback #4 (the sequence was 2-inch, PT in one configuration, 2-inch, PT in an alternate configuration, if I remember correctly) if anyone heard the "bass problem," I know I saw people in the crowd who had not been there for the whole sequence, and some folks said as much, that they had only heard a few moments. Nobody raised his hand, including me, because I shouldn't have been making any indication here. I then heard a bunch of equivocating, things like "..you could call it a problem in the low end, but everything affects everything and how you perceive it..." and "It's all different..." I don't know what to make of these comments, but we will hear from more of these folks in due time, I'm sure, and I will enjoy hearing what they have to say. I'm sure there were a number of people who heard absolutely no problem in the low end, and I know from conversation that there were others who did. This much is absolutely true: There was not a general agreement that there was a big "bass problem."

I know I had no position on the question prior to hearing the mixes, but as the guy who brought the master tape in, and an engineer who works esclusively on analog tape, I can see how someone would assume I would be biased. Some of you have suggested as much already. All I can say is that I don't believe I was influenced by anything other than what I was hearing. I will elaborate on this when I have more time.

I genuinely wanted to see what everyone in the room heard, and I didn't want to influence anyone in his expression of it. That's why I didn't say anything. Since there was no interest elsewhere in re-living the live playback of the mixes, and because there were many other things to listen to, I was satisfied that I was in the minority. It has been suggested that I was the only one to hear "the bass problem," but that is not what I took from my conversations with others on the evening. There were several people proclaiming "there is no elephant in the room." I believe them that they did not hear a bass problem, and I do not imply they are being deceptive. I will write more about this later as well.

Additionally, this was not my test. It was instigated by others, and I was merely helping-out in its execution. I'm glad I got to see it, and the evening was revealing to me, but I had no interest in commandeering it. Long before I arrived, the scope of the eveing had broadened to include various sampling rates, clocking configurations, outboard clocks, a complete and different digital recording system (in two configurations), etc. There was a lot to do, and we had already been there quite few hours. I was not going to be "that guy" and derail the evening, especially since I think I had answered my own curiosity already.

One last thing for now: The staff at CRC, especially Azoulas and Bruce, were absolute troupers, doing every nit-picky thing we asked of them efficiently and with patience. They made it a pleasure to participate in this test.

There is much more to write, but fuck it for tonight.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 04:01:01 AM
Thank God, there is a problem, but it only affects 0.00000000000000000198% of the World population.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 20, 2005, 05:31:26 AM
Thanks, Steve.

That clears a lot up for me.  I wasn't there, so I didn't hear the live tests.  

My only point in the test is that I didn't hear anything in any of the files that I felt would have kept me from mixing, or enjoying those tracks.  Do you?  If you set up your tracks while listening through the 192, you would find that you have enough leeway to fix your bottom problem going in, with mic placement or EQ.

I find myself in this business mostly because I love the music.  If the song speaks to me, then that's about audiofile enough for me.  The rest is just turning thiings up, and turning things down until I find that one perfect performance

It's simple, right?

Steve.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rphilbeck on November 20, 2005, 10:05:22 AM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 05:31



I find myself in this business mostly because I love the music.  If the song speaks to me, then that's about audiofile enough for me.  The rest is just turning thiings up, and turning things down until I find that one perfect performance

It's simple, right?

Steve.



I agree, and sound quality is about 3rd on my list of priorities behind performance and song, but it is still a priority.  And how it impacts the other two should not be discounted.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 12:14:00 PM
To all,

I have demonstrated the loss of low-end in this kind of transfer about a dozen times to people that have no interest in the outcome of the results (aside from wanting their record to sound good).

Slipperman has experienced the loss of low-end dozens of times, and has been called on it with some marked disappointment from bands.

Steve Albini has stated the following: "I heard the low-end problem plain as day. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable."

Bob Ohlsson has experienced the obvious loss of low-end.

Fletcher has not weighed in yet.

Here's what I'm going to propose in order to lay this to rest once and for all.

I want Rail Jon Rogut, Rick Krizman, John Van Nest (The Resonater), Terry Manning (compaspoint), Randy Nicklaus, and Bryan Jackson (Digiengineer), with me, in a room, in LA, in the next three weeks (before December 16), with a 2" machine, a Pro Tools HD rig, and a Radar.

This will not be an event. There will be one assistant in the room. There will be no drinks. Just 7 professionals, listening objectively, and with the goal of putting this to rest once and for all.

I will supply the program, (which will consist of drums only) and I will make arrangements for the room and the equipment.

Rail can make sure that the transfers are done to spec. He can adjust anything he likes, on any machine, just so long as everyone is satisfied that the transfer and the playback is being executed flawlessly. I'm quite certain we can all agree to that.

We will do two transfers and two transfers only. One into Pro Tools HD. One into Radar. I will print three static mixes from each machine, to a digital 2-track of the groups choice, using db gold converters at 44.1/16. We will then compare Analog to Digital A, and Analog to Digital B. People can listen blind, not blind, I don't care. It's not going to change the results.

When I am done conducting this demonstration, there will be 6 more full-time professionals prepared to state they could hear an obvious low-end loss in transfer to Pro Tools HD. The internet pundits can then make what they want out of that. But perhaps, Digidesign would be so kind as to finally fix the problem.

I need a PM from each of the participants listed above. In the PM, please supply me with an email address where I can send correspondence to the group as a whole, and so that we can come upon a date that is satisfactory for everyone involved.

Thanks,

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 20, 2005, 12:21:28 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 03:49

[At the risk of Mr. Albini correcting me -

I believe information has been given that he did in fact hear this issue when the rough mix was being done - doing the mix on 2" and then changing the inputs to the console to pro tools and RADAR outputs.

It was Mr. Albini who asked if anyone heard "the problem" and asked if so, to raise their hand.

I also believe we have information that he made it clear to the room of people that he did in fact hear the bottom being different.  If he also heard this on RADAR has not been discussed.

The issue to ponder is why this doesn't show up clearly on the mixes.




Perhaps the answer is that when you transfer from analog to digital something changes.  And perhaps the change resulting from going digital at all is greater than the differences between digital platforms.  This has been my experience in doing the same thing.


-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Barish on November 20, 2005, 12:24:21 PM
I don't think it can get any fairer than that.

B.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: electrical on November 20, 2005, 12:33:25 PM
I am an analog engineer. I make every record on tape machines and consoles. I have limited exposure to digital multitracks, but plenty of exposure to digital audio in general. I have heard digital copies of analog recordings I've done on countless occasions, but this has been limited to finished stereo masters. Sometimes I think they are atrocious, sometimes I think they are perfectly adequate. I will describe some of the better digital systems I've heard, so you, dear reader, will be able to gauge my response to the "bass problem" Pro Tools test.

The "best" digital system I have ever heard is the Sonic System at Abbey Road mastering. I have worked on it more than a dozen times, and even working on it for several days running, listening to the analog masters and the system alternately, I consider this system as close to a piece of wire as I have ever heard. I do not know their converters or clocking regimen, sorry. The Sonic System is used as storage only, with editing for sequencing and such. Level and EQ are handled by the transfer console. There are several digital processors that can be inserted into the chain, and they have an effect on the quality of the system as a whole. The SPL digital limiter is un-useable, the Junger limiter is acceptable in several of its customized settings, and the Sony equalizer is viable in case of emergency only. Having worked on this terriffic system while mastering an album, and after listening to the masters through their beautiful console, listening to the 16-bit playback from the CDR can be quite a let-down.

As of last year, I understand they were considering a move to Paris, and away from Sonic. I am curious if they have standardized on Paris or if they are running both concurrently.

The Weiss/Harmonia Mundi/Paris system at John Golden's place is the only digital system I have heard elsewhere that was close.

So that's what I think "good" digital transfers should sound like: I should be able to listen to them and be able to forget that I am. They should be practically indistinguishable from the source material. I have never listened critically to a multitrack transfer into digital, because I have never had need to. If I have a multitrack master, I will use that to make the record, not a copy.

"Bad" digital copies, in my experience, have a hardened quality to the high-end and a slightly garbled quality to the midrange (sung and spoken and voice range). I have not noticed a significant difference in low-frequency response between digital systems and good analog systems, except in certain extreme cases (10-20Hz) where some digital systems perform better than some analog systems. In particular, I remember doing a sound-effects recording of a vibrating motor on a metal resonating tray, and the extreme low-frequencies were attenuated on the analog recorder (a good one, flat to 30Hz or so), but not on the digital system used simultaneously. In principle, low frequencies should be the easiest part to get right, since their periods are long, the waveforms should be much easier to sample accurately.

For these reasons, I was skeptical that there was a significant "bass problem" with ProTools.

Of those in attendance at the test, I was certainly the only one who regularly used analog tape. I was certainly the only one there who virtually never listens to digital multi-track sessions. I may have been the only AE in the room who had listened to an analog mutitrack in the past year, but that might be over-stating it by a hair. I would bet my house against a donut that I have listened to more analog multitracks in the past year than everyone else in the room combined.

Prior to the test, there had been much discussion about what was being tested and how we would test it. The test was initially to be a simple comparison between an original multitrack tape and a ProTools copy of the tape. This would not have been nearly painful enough, so a whole slew of other choices were added.

The majority of the evening was devoted to making sure that the different formats were calibrated to within 0.1dB of each other. This was, in my opinion, absolutely critical, as level mismatches can be perceived as increases in bass, power or clarity.

Earlier in the day, Bruce Breckenfeld (a fine technical engineer at CRC), had meticulously calibrated the input headroom and through-put of the ProTools system. The input headroom was -18dB=0dBfs, and the through-put was at unity gain within 0.1dB. While testing the transfer with the alignment tones of the 16-track recording, the headroom of the system seemed off. The signal hitting the converters was hotter than it should have been. While measuring the console channel internal levels, we discovered hotter levels as well.

We surmised that the impedance difference between the AP test set and the Studer multitrack corresponded to a difference in level at the input of the converter. Likewise, a difference between the AP test input and the console input corresponded to a different level at the output as well. This necessitated a complete re-calibration of the ProTools system, and since the test had been expanded to include two reference levels, the alignment had to be re-done twice.

Once we could get a 1kHz tone recorded and played back accurately, a task that took far longer than anyone imagined, we transferred the program material. The tape I had brought for the test was a 16-track recording of a heavy metal band. I thought a master like this would present an appropriate test for the "bass problem." I was, however, self-conscious about the choice, and I admit to being nervous about it.

I was concerned that those in attendance would not be used to listening to music like this, and would be put-off by it. I was nervous that, rather than listening to the system differences, people would be confronting the material and the choices made in the recording, particularly the de-tuned and distorted bass and guitar sounds. In this, as much as any other aspect of the test, I did not want my involvement (for example, my choice of this program material) to have been a distraction from the point of the test.

I am also aware of a psychological effect that I have fallen victim-to in the past; whenever I play a recording I've done in front of other people, it invariably sounds like shit to me at the time. It doesn't matter whether it's the drummer's roommate, the label guy, a journalist, another engineer or just someone at a party. If I have to play something I've recorded in front of other people, I think it sounds like shit. In this case, I thought the low-end of the rough mix as we were pulling it together was really soupy and confusing, and I wondered if anyone would be able to make heads-or-tails of it. In particular, the tonal overlap in the bass guitar and the two Les Paul guitars was feeling profoundly muddy to me. I became acclimatized to it after a few listens, and, although I was aware of it, it ceased bothering me. I was intimately familiar with this band and their music, and the "heaviness" of their sound is both critical and difficult to manage. It is pretty easy to mistake muddiness for heaviness in this context, and I felt that within the confines of the rough mix, the net effect was muddy rather than heavy, but I could live with it for our purposes.

We established the monitor level for the playbacks. It was slightly louder than I would normally monitor, but there was a crowd in the room, and some of them were holding conversations, so it seemed appropriate. During one of the playbacks, Fletcher felt compelled to shout a shut-the-fuck-up at the room, and I don't blame him.

In the opening moments of the first 2-inch playback, my self-consciousness returned: Jesus, that's a lot of confusing low-end there. Everyone's going to think I'm a hack. Okay, get over it, just listen. Again, I acclimatized to the rough mix as we were listening to it, and I started to listen for specific features in the music that I might use as landmarks in future playbacks. In particular, there was a break that ended in a muted bass note, the after-ring of which was a low-frequency resonance that was physical in nature at that volume. There were also some cymbal crashes with an accented bass drum, and the bass drum had a slightly harder attack on these few strokes.

The next playback was one configuration of the ProTools system. I sensed the low-end difference immediately. It was as though someone had listened to my thoughts about the confusing/muddy low-end of the previous listen and "done some work" to try to "clean it up." This is important: I could easily imagine some people preferring it this way. There were other differences as well, but nothing I was unfamiliar with in my other experiences with digital transfers. The high-end was slightly "harder" sounding, and the upper-mid-range sounded slightly garbled. I really hate using terms like that, because the impressions are so difficult to describe, but that's where I have to leave it. The difference would be comparable to the differences between different consoles, and it would be easy to see how different folks would have different preferences among them.

There was another playback of the tape, and again I felt the low-end was less clear and slightly over-wrought. My perspective on this material, my familiarity with it, and my appreciation of music like this put me in an odd position: I didn't want the folks in the room to think this band were trivial or bad. I wanted the band to be allowed to make a good impression. To that end, I wanted the rough mix to be as representative as possible. I felt that the rough mix from the 2-inch was falling short, in that it was coming-off as muddy, and that made me self-conscious.

There was another playback from a different configuration of ProTools. This playback sounded significantly better in those areas I was familiar with from other digital transfers: The high-end sounded smoother, though still slightly more "pointy," and the garbled nature of the upper-midrange seemed significantly better. There seemed to be a consensus in the room for these improvements. The low-end sounded the same (to me) as the first ProTools playback: As though someone had used a filter or something to lessen the muddy interaction of the different bass-register instruments. Again, I could easily imagine someone preferring this sound. If I were to succumb to the worst of my fears regarding the muddyness of this piece of music and the impression it might leave of the band, I might have been willing to settle for it myself, rather than spend more time on a proper mix to preserve the low-end without the oppressive muddy quality.

The difference in the low-end was so apparent to me that I considered it settled, and my mind moved on to other issues, like trying to define the difference in the high-end between this configuration and the previous one, etc.

I felt bad, even, for Gannon and the other Digidesign fellow (Forgive me, I have forgotten his name) there, since both of them had been professional, cordial and attentive throughout the entire tedious run-up and the testing itself. I felt bad for them that when I asked everyone if they heard a bass problem, I feared every hand would shoot up immediately. These guys were clearly dedicated to their product, and wanted to be responsible to their user base. That'e why they were here. I was hoping it wouldn't be too awkward.

Here's an aside that might explain my reticence. My girlfriend and several of her friends spent the better part of four years working on a documentary film about the Christian rock subculture. She wanted to examine this phenomenon and present these people without passing judgement on them. The movie allows its subjects tell their own stories and explain themselves and their motivations, and the filmmakers' perspective is neutral to the point of being absent. People tend to react to the people and the content of the film based on their general and specific reaction to Christians.

One evening, my girlfriend agreed to show the film to a group of our friends. After the film finished, one of our friends (I'll call him Kennan) blurted out "So, everybody thinks all these Christians are fucking idiots, right?" This friend obviously had formed an opinion, and he assumed everyone else had formed the same opinion. Certainly the several Christians in the room didn't share it, but he had no way of knowing there were any there. I certainly understood his opinion, as there are things about the Christian culture that are both tragic and horrifying, but I cannot make such a blanket statement about the Christians themselves, some of whom, despite their Christian association, are decent and even progressive people. His ejaculation immediately derailed the evening, and made any conversation about the movie impossible.

When we polled the listening group, I tried to be as diplomatic as possible, in an attempt to avoid being the evening's Kennan. Bearing in mind that there were a significant number of people there who had either a real or perceived interest in the outcome, and therefore shouldn't have voiced an opinion, I don't know how else I could have phrased the question.

Let me explain the connundrum. I asked the room if anyone heard a "bass problem." Of the 20-odd people in the room when I asked the question, more than half should not have expressed an opinion because of perceived or real interest in the outcome. Their silence would be taken by the rest of the room as "I heard no bass problem," and this is not necessarily the case. There were other people there who did not hear enough of the playbacks to form an opinion. Their silence would be read the same way. It was agreed by assent, however, that there were differences between the playbacks. Immediately thereafter, there was some equivocating about whether or not the low-end was particularly affected. I would love to hear more from those of you who were there, in particular those of you who said nothing at the time, but then did to me privately. The "compromised" parties included, Chris, Azoulas, Fletcher... everybody. I'd like to hear more from those who were there for the initial listening.

Still, it remains that when I asked the question, nobody's hand shot up. I remain baffled by this, as the "bass problem," as part of the bundle of differences between the original and the copies, was plainly evident to me. Evident to the extent that it changed my emotional response to the mix balance, caused me to consider the matter settled and move on to other things. I felt exactly as if I had been in the room with a brilliant strobe light, and when I asked if anyone saw it, everyone said "what strobe light?"

This brings us to the Nuendo files. I had a really hard time listening to these snippets during the A/B/X tests. I thought they sounded uniformly nasty and harsh, although I thought I could distinguish some differences. I had no confidence in many of my answers, and declined to hazard a guess on two of the tests. I got exactly nine-of-sixteen, two unanswered. Not significantly better than you could expect from tossing a coin.

Throughout the evening, there were observations and preferences made about the different systems being auditioned that weren't borne-out in the ABX testing. There were some correlations of better-than-random, but with such a small sample size, I have little confidence in these results. It will be interesting to see if the much larger sample size made possible by posting the files increases the correllation.

That the scope of the test was widened to include Radar and clocking variations ate up a bunch of time, and created many options to audition. In retrospect, I was more interested in the initial question, and would have preferred to dwell on it. Still, I can't fault anyone for pressing-on while there was an opportunity to compare so many things under reasonably controlled conditions.

There is yet more to write, but I am going to work now.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 20, 2005, 12:34:32 PM
Quote:

To all,

I have demonstrated the loss of low-end in this kind of transfer about a dozen times to people that have no interest in the outcome of the results (aside from wanting their record to sound good).

Slipperman has experienced the loss of low-end dozens of times, and has been called on it with some marked disappointment from bands.

Steve Albini has stated the following: "I heard the low-end problem plain as day. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable."

Bob Ohlsson has experienced the obvious loss of low-end.

Fletcher has not weighed in yet.

Here's what I'm going to propose in order to lay this to rest once and for all.

I want Rail Jon Rogut, Rick Krizman, John Van Nest (The Resonater), Terry Manning (compaspoint), Randy Nicklaus, and Bryan Jackson (Digiengineer), with me, in a room, in LA, in the next three weeks (before December 16), with a 2" machine, a Pro Tools HD rig, and a Radar.

This will not be an event. There will be one assistant in the room. There will be no drinks. Just 7 professionals, listening objectively, and with the goal of putting this to rest once and for all.

I will supply the program, (which will consist of drums only) and I will make arrangements for the room and the equipment.

Rail can make sure that the transfers are done to spec. He can adjust anything he likes, on any machine, just so long as everyone is satisfied that the transfer and the playback is being executed flawlessly. I'm quite certain we can all agree to that.

We will do two transfers and two transfers only. One into Pro Tools HD. One into Radar. I will print three static mixes from each machine, to the machine of the groups choice, through db gold converters at 44.1/16. We will then compare Analog to Digital A, and Analog to Digital B. People can listen blind, not blind, I don't care. It's not going to change the results.

When I am done conducting this demonstration, there will be 6 more full-time professionals prepared to state they could hear an obvious low-end loss in transfer to Pro Tools HD. The internet pundits can then make what they want out of that. But perhaps, Digidesign would be so kind as to finally fix the problem.

I need a PM from each of the participants listed above. In the PM, please supply me with an email address where I can send correspondence to the group as a whole, and so that we can come upon a date that is satisfactory for everyone involved.

Thanks,

Mixerman




Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes

Perfect.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Barish on November 20, 2005, 01:06:07 PM
Frankly speaking, I wouldn't expect any other outcome from an audition of such fashion.


1) There wasn't a second copier to compare the results of the first (PT) to, hence it was impossible to do a blind test anyhow.


2) Most of the crowd had already made up their minds before the test, so in a set-up where you can't do a blind test and everyone involved has a hidden/obvious agenda, expecting say, a Digidesign rep to shout "oh yeah, I hear it!" is quite a naive one, whether there really is a difference or not is irrelevant. "I don't hear it." End of story. How are you going to disprove that?


I think the only benefit of this experiment in Chicago was that you guys had an opportunity to meet each other in person. Other than that, it's been a waste of time from all points of view, me thinks.


B.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 01:19:05 PM
Thank you Steve for your thoughts so far.

Last night I had thought about if I was going to bring a multi track tape to a test situation as you did and then with all the technical things going on doing a quick rough mix for judgement of the low end sound of converters.

In fact, I shared that on the phone late to someone who is also watching this test with interest.

Of course, you are human and based on your writings care deeply about your projects and how they sound.  It is refreshing for me that I am not the only one who dreads "public" playback.

That said, being in the ideal listening position, actually listening and tweaking the mix and all of it's subtleties, you would be much more tuned into any changes to the tonal balance during playback than anyone else in the room by far.  What may be a big difference to your ears at that point, may in fact be rather subtle to someone who's acute awareness is not as heightened as yours would be by doing the mix.

I had a huge blow up with a mastering engineer some years ago over a DAT and CD ref.  I heard, through the same converter, a very different bottom end profile of the same program on these 2 refs.

I was very happy with the DAT ref and simply said that the master should sound like that, with a much tighter bottom end.  I was very happy with it.  To my dismay, the ME freaked out, called me and the band into his studio (he had done a lot of their catalog remastering) and in front of everyone accused me of trying to harm him with the band.

I'll tell you what, still in his room, I could hear with the same converters on both the DAT and CDR, the difference no matter how many times they played it back in what random order YET nobody else could hear it. It was not subtle to me.  It went from flabby to tight.

Go figure.

If the Mixerman LA test happens, I propose, no mixes just raw drum and bass files set up as one would listen in a tracking situation.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 20, 2005, 01:20:46 PM
So many variables to consider...converter type. digital sync and its chain, which many people think can have dramatic effect on percieved sound character.  If its just a 3-6 dB at 40 Hz, then I would say turn up the eq knob a tad, and be done with it.  then focus on mics and micing and pre's and eq's and mix levels, etc.  

but I would agree that there is a digital reduction of low end on PT systems...I just happen to be glad its there, since I like mixes that are not bottomy.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 01:24:01 PM
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 09:21

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 03:49

[At the risk of Mr. Albini correcting me -

I believe information has been given that he did in fact hear this issue when the rough mix was being done - doing the mix on 2" and then changing the inputs to the console to pro tools and RADAR outputs.

It was Mr. Albini who asked if anyone heard "the problem" and asked if so, to raise their hand.

I also believe we have information that he made it clear to the room of people that he did in fact hear the bottom being different.  If he also heard this on RADAR has not been discussed.

The issue to ponder is why this doesn't show up clearly on the mixes.




Perhaps the answer is that when you transfer from analog to digital something changes.  And perhaps the change resulting from going digital at all is greater than the differences between digital platforms.  This has been my experience in doing the same thing.


-R



If that were the case it would seem everyone would be up in arms at all times about the refs they take home after working so hard on a mix.  They would hear it on the spot via 1st playback of the CDR.  This issue would be much deeper than pro tools.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 01:26:32 PM
danickstr wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:20

So many variables to consider...converter type. digital sync and its chain, which many people think can have dramatic effect on percieved sound character.  If its just a 3-6 dB at 40 Hz, then I would say turn up the eq knob a tad, and be done with it.  then focus on mics and micing and pre's and eq's and mix levels, etc.  

but I would agree that there is a digital reduction of low end on PT systems...I just happen to be glad its there, since I like mixes that are not bottomy.


Did you find this so in the files?  Which one or ones are down 3 to 6 DB at 40 hz?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 20, 2005, 01:29:49 PM
I can honestly say that the boggy-man was not in the room when Steve asked the question.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 01:35:00 PM
Barish wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:06

Frankly speaking, I wouldn't expect any other outcome from an audition of such fashion.


1) There wasn't a second copier to compare the results of the first (PT) to, hence it was impossible to do a blind test anyhow.


2) Most of the crowd had already made up their minds before the test, so in a set-up where you can't do a blind test and everyone involved has a hidden/obvious agenda, expecting say, a Digidesign rep to shout "oh yeah, I hear it!" is quite a naive one, whether there really is a difference or not is irrelevant. "I don't hear it." End of story. How are you going to disprove that?


I think the only benefit of this experiment in Chicago was that you guys had an opportunity to meet each other in person. Other than that, it's been a waste of time from all points of view, me thinks.


B.




Let me ask this -

If they "printed" the first analog pass to Nuendo and didn't find it representative, why not change formats at that point?

It would not have been all that difficult (he says not being there)

Now Neundo and the Lavry converters are suspect as well, if one is to believe that the capture did not represent the live playback.

Does this go back to what I said a while back - That a 1/2" 2 track mix would have shown the same "problem"?  Is this problem in all digital systems but RADAR?  

Did the ABx test really level the field?

What will batman do to get out of this mess????

Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 20, 2005, 01:36:27 PM
re the files question by RNicklaus: I don't think that Nuendo is the way to level the playing field  (lemon juice in coke and pepsi the absolute ringer of an analogy), but would be happy to go to LA and listen in a west coast test.  

It would be fun to put the 2" in another room and have it controlled MMC from the console, so that double blind could be established live from tape.  Gosh I wonder if we could hear any difference then...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 01:41:12 PM
danickstr wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:36

re the files question by RNicklaus: I don't think that Nuendo is the way to level the playing field  (lemon juice in coke and pepsi the absolute ringer of an analogy), but would be happy to go to LA and listen in a west coast test.  

It would be fun to put the 2" in another room and have it controlled MMC from the console, so that double blind could be established live from tape.  Gosh I wonder if we could hear any difference then...


You just can't have people arguing in the room.  It's there! No it isn't!

What is the storage format?

I can tell you this, I have gone in to Dave Collin's room with a 1/2" master and the same mix put back into pro tools via DB converters and in a couple of cases Dave decided to go with the pro tools file. It wasn't becasue the bottom was tighter I'll tell you that.

Nuendo and Lavry are going to be worse than that?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: archtop on November 20, 2005, 01:43:41 PM
Interesting that none of the samples will null. no matter what I do.

I bestow a serious thank you to those involved.
Alot of effort was givin'.

Thanks.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 01:46:51 PM
I was under the mistaken impression that Terry lived in LA. My Bad.  I guess I knew he was on an island somewhere in a different lifetime.

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 20, 2005, 01:48:42 PM
Randy I am not really trying to argue with you, I am simply pointing out that with so many professionals convinced that there is a problem, there must be a problem.  I doubt it is a big problem and I quite frankly think they are nit-picking a bit, but that is neither here nor there.  

There are a bunch of other factors that go inot the whole digital conversion thing, as you note in the 1/2 " example, which again I think are inherent in the systems and not a major deal, in the case of a great converter like a lavry.  I am really the choir here, so the sermon isn't gonna be all that new to me.  I like old 70's tunes with 80-12k of response just fine.  Because the song works as art.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 02:04:09 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:46

I was under the mistaken impression that Terry lived in LA. My Bad.  I guess I knew he was on an island somewhere in a different lifetime.

Mixerman


Let's go there!!!!!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 02:06:07 PM
danickstr wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:48

Randy I am not really trying to argue with you, I am simply pointing out that with so many professionals convinced that there is a problem, there must be a problem.  I doubt it is a big problem and I quite frankly think they are nit-picking a bit, but that is neither here nor there.  

There are a bunch of other factors that go inot the whole digital conversion thing, as you note in the 1/2 " example, which again I think are inherent in the systems and not a major deal, in the case of a great converter like a lavry.  I am really the choir here, so the sermon isn't gonna be all that new to me.  I like old 70's tunes with 80-12k of response just fine.  Because the song works as art.


I am not trying to argue, just bring up as many points as I ponder.

Questions are good for all of us even if rhetorical.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on November 20, 2005, 02:10:22 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:19


If the Mixerman LA test happens, I propose, no mixes just raw drum and bass files set up as one would listen in a tracking situation.



If the Mixerman LA test happens, and I would love it happens, I would suggest more dynamic files (no offense steve, those sounded good) as Bob Ohlson suggested it was a dynamic problem. I agree that there is no use to keep the guitars or anything else than bass and drums.

I would also agree with mixerman that three excerpts should be blind tested and not more than that.

thirdly, I don't know if you need to be  35 in the control room at one time.

I was reading what Steve Albini reported, and I must say I was a bit disappointed he felt the need to refrain from saying anything while he was experiencing the bass loss problem.

Most of all, I wonder why the bass loss, wich was the main purpose of this test, was not the object of a personal and secret vote that should have been written on paper like the rest of the blind test

That would have prevent anyone from being influenced by the others, biased or not.

I haven't been listening to the test files yet in a satisfactory environment, I will do later,and I would like to thank, nevertheless, all the people involved.

best

malice

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 02:16:51 PM
malice wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 11:10

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:19


If the Mixerman LA test happens, I propose, no mixes just raw drum and bass files set up as one would listen in a tracking situation.



If the Mixerman LA test happens, and I would love it happens, I would suggest more dynamic files (no offense steve, those sounded good) as Bob Ohlson suggested it was a dynamic problem. I agree that there is no use to keep the guitars or anything else than bass and drums.

I would also agree with mixerman that three excerpts should be blind tested and not more than that.

thirdly, I don't know if you need to be  35 in the control room at one time.

I was reading what Steve Albini reported, and I must say I was a bit disappointed he felt the need to refrain from saying anything while he was experiencing the bass loss problem.

Most of all, I wonder why the bass loss, wich was the main purpose of this test, was not the object of a personal and secret vote that should have been written on paper like the rest of the blind test

That would have prevent anyone from being influenced by the others, biased or not.

I haven't been listening to the test files yet in a satisfactory environment, I will do later,and I would like to thank, nevertheless, all the people involved.

best

malice





If you listen to Steve's recording and read what he said, you can tell there was a lot of energy flying through the power supply.

It's huge.  Again, forget the test for a minute and listen to the stereo imaging on the drums.  Holy shit!

Now, is that the same as finishing a bass and drum take and listening for problems in the performance?  Will that use more juice from the power supply?

That's above my pay grade for sure.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on November 20, 2005, 02:23:42 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 20:16


If you listen to Steve's recording and read what he said, you can tell there was a lot of energy flying through the power supply.

It's huge.  Again, forget the test for a minute and listen to the stereo imaging on the drums.  Holy shit!


No doubt about it Wink Steve is Steve !


Quote:


Now, is that the same as finishing a bass and drum take and listening for problems in the performance?  Will that use more juice from the power supply?

That's above my pay grade for sure.


I agree, I was just suggesting some other type of content for experiment sakes.

I'm really trying to understand more than arguing. I have experienced this problem myself, and perhaps I'm just willing to know what I have been doing wrong with the transfer if indeed it was an operator (moi) mistake (wich I won't necessary dismiss)

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 02:33:10 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:41

danickstr wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:36

re the files question by RNicklaus: I don't think that Nuendo is the way to level the playing field  (lemon juice in coke and pepsi the absolute ringer of an analogy), but would be happy to go to LA and listen in a west coast test.  

It would be fun to put the 2" in another room and have it controlled MMC from the console, so that double blind could be established live from tape.  Gosh I wonder if we could hear any difference then...


You just can't have people arguing in the room.  It's there! No it isn't!

What is the storage format?

I can tell you this, I have gone in to Dave Collin's room with a 1/2" master and the same mix put back into pro tools via DB converters and in a couple of cases Dave decided to go with the pro tools file. It wasn't becasue the bottom was tighter I'll tell you that.

Nuendo and Lavry are going to be worse than that?



LOL. Two tracks transferred using db Gold converters and clock!

C'mon, Randy. I'm not arguing whether Pro Tools is capable of storing files adequately.

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Plush on November 20, 2005, 02:38:29 PM
May I point out a problem that might illuminate
why no hands were raised?

CRC Studio 5 has adequately good sound at the mix  
position, but has fuzzy resolution as one
moves farther back in the listening area.

With 20 or more people listening to the playbacks,
obviously many were more towards the back of the room.
Here, the sound is diffuse and more indistinct, making it
difficult to listen critically.

The opinion about the room has been gathered over several
years in association with various shoot-outs and tests conducted by the Chicago engineering club, EARS (Engineering and Recording
Society)

-----------------------------------------------------
I really wish I had been free to attend the listening tests.
I, too, am an analog freak who makes it his business to use analog and hi-res digital every day.
I salute the patience and expertise of those who put in the
time to make it happen.

At the same time, however, it's my opinion that the test was waaaaaaaayy over complicated with a head spinning number of variables which added nothing to the integrity of the test.
Notable offenders were the different sample rates and different clocks which are surely irrelevant to determining low end frequency response. Viewed scientifically, and in accordance with digital theory and practice, they are irrelevant because recording bass is very easy and accurate in ANY digital system.
Mr. Albini's perception that the program material was not rendered accurately means that the system had a broken converter
(or a low resolution one---or that levels were off)    

Mr. Albini acted like an engineer--he attempted to verify the integrity of the transfer by first making a test transfer. That's what the first playback was. Upon making the transfer from 2", he switched the monitor chain to the destination recorder and heard a difference. That's it-----test is OVER.

The real test would have then been to ignore any further variables and play THAT test for the assembled listeners.    
 
I look forward to a simpler test on the coast.

Best from Chicago,

Hudsonek
(L'Atelier HudSonic)

 


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 02:39:46 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 11:33

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:41

danickstr wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:36

re the files question by RNicklaus: I don't think that Nuendo is the way to level the playing field  (lemon juice in coke and pepsi the absolute ringer of an analogy), but would be happy to go to LA and listen in a west coast test.  

It would be fun to put the 2" in another room and have it controlled MMC from the console, so that double blind could be established live from tape.  Gosh I wonder if we could hear any difference then...


You just can't have people arguing in the room.  It's there! No it isn't!

What is the storage format?

I can tell you this, I have gone in to Dave Collin's room with a 1/2" master and the same mix put back into pro tools via DB converters and in a couple of cases Dave decided to go with the pro tools file. It wasn't becasue the bottom was tighter I'll tell you that.

Nuendo and Lavry are going to be worse than that?



LOL. Two tracks transferred using db Gold converters and clock!

C'mon, Randy. I'm not arguing whether Pro Tools is capable of storing files adequately.

Mixerman



You know, when I read that back I thought the very same thing - I didn't put that very well - it should have read much worse than that.

But the method of storage was discused by everyone for a while before the test, this could have been addressed.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 02:46:16 PM
Plush wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 11:38

May I point out a problem that might illuminate
why no hands were raised?

CRC Studio 5 has adequately good sound at the mix  
position, but has fuzzy resolution as one
moves farther back in the listening area.

With 20 or more people listening to the playbacks,
obviously many were more towards the back of the room.
Here, the sound is diffuse and more indistinct, making it
difficult to listen critically.

The opinion about the room has been gathered over several
years in association with various shoot-outs and tests conducted by the Chicago engineering club, EARS (Engineering and Recording
Society)

-----------------------------------------------------
I really wish I had been free to attend the listening tests.
I, too, am an analog freak who makes it his business to use analog and hi-res digital every day.
I salute the patience and expertise of those who put in the
time to make it happen.

At the same time, however, it's my opinion that the test was waaaaaaaayy over complicated with a head spinning number of variables which added nothing to the integrity of the test.
Notable offenders were the different sample rates and different clocks which are surely irrelevant to determining low end frequency response. Viewed scientifically, and in accordance with digital theory and practice, they are irrelevant because recording bass is very easy and accurate in ANY digital system.
Mr. Albini's perception that the program material was not rendered accurately means that the system had a broken converter
(or a low resolution one---or that levels were off)    

Mr. Albini acted like an engineer--he attempted to verify the integrity of the transfer by first making a test transfer. That's what the first playback was. Upon making the transfer from 2", he switched the monitor chain to the destination recorder and heard a difference. That's it-----test is OVER.

The real test would have then been to ignore any further variables and play THAT test for the assembled listeners.    
 
I look forward to a simpler test on the coast.

Best from Chicago,

Hudsonek
(L'Atelier HudSonic)

 






Some good points there but to just say one engineer can make the test transfer and not think it's right and "test over" is not a test.

Mixerman has done that.  Slipperman has done that.  Others have done that.

I agree that there were too many sample frequencies and clocks and RADAR was not an issue.

You are right, does Pro Tools loose significant bottom end on the transfer?  That is the only question.  To me, if RADAR does or doesn't is beside the point.

Then why didn't it show up on the mixes?

Is it because also Lavry and Nuendo can't handle a 2 track transfer with any resolution at 24/96?  Is this also an issue?

I don't know.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 02:59:26 PM
I hear something lost, but it's not lowend.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RMoore on November 20, 2005, 03:05:21 PM
very interesting - thanks to those who did the test,
i was very intruiged by the idea of bass loss in PT / digid and was curious why that element of the test seemed not to have recieved much focus , especially when assumedly some participants had even travelled in from out of town,
btw - the last post from steve albini with bits of his internal thought processes, how he hears bits of  mix,  etc was a CLASSIC imo, personally way more thought provoking as it pertains to recording and music production than the whole digi discussion,...
i hope someone can put the pt bass thing to rest once and for all,
that would be mind blowing should it turn out that the DD converters crap out on dynamic material

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 03:07:57 PM
Ryan Moore wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 12:05

very interesting - thanks to those who did the test,
i was very intruiged by the idea of bass loss in PT / digid and was curious why that element of the test seemed not to have recieved much focus , especially when assumedly some participants had even travelled in from out of town,
btw - the last post from steve albini with bits of his internal thought processes, how he hears bits of  mix,  etc was a CLASSIC imo, personally way more thought provoking as it pertains to recording and music production than the whole digi discussion,...
i hope someone can put the pt bass thing to rest once and for all,
that would be mind blowing should it turn out that the DD converters crap out on dynamic material




Are you saying this wasn't dynamic material?

And what do you mean by the mind blowing comment?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 20, 2005, 03:14:34 PM
Frankly, I did not expect to be writing this.  I downloaded the samples and concentrated only on the Analog 2", PTHD 48 k (192 internal) and Radar 48 k (internal).  I looped the first 4 bars of the selection and went from analog to PT, analog to PT several times.  What I get is that there is a deep and powerful aspect to the kick drum, a 'stoutness' for lack of a better term, in the analog version and the kick drum clearly drives the track.  With PTHD at 48 k, the kick is no longer the driving force that it is with the analog version.  The point of the attack is there, but my ear is drawn to the drone-y aspect of the bass instead of the assaultive kick like it is in the analog version.  Another way of explaining this is like there is an eq 'focus' control that was highlighting the movement and power of the kick (in the analog version) which has been moved upward somewhere between a 5th and a minor 7th in the PTHD version.  

Analog to Radar 48k (internal) fares better in that the kick still is the driving force, but I hear a difference here as well.  It is just not as substantial as with PTHD.  Radar leaves the intent of the engineering choice more fully intact.  

I was trying to find the final methodology for this test: was analog ever tested for fidelity to the original in the same way that Pro Tools and Radar were (analog to PTHD, analog to Radar, analog to analog)?  Clearly this firestorm all began with issues of fidelity to the source.  Since the true source material is human beings and the performances they create, I would also think the answer to this test (analog to analog) would also be of great general interest.  

If I remember correctly, Ed Meitner (who's DSD converters may be the best-sounding digital I have yet experienced) was the designer of record for the 192 interface--maybe he could shed some light on this controversy.  

Truthfully, I don't know if I could reliably pick out the differences referred to above in an A/B/X test--certainly not one in an unfamiliar room with many people around me, yet my stated results oppose my 'hidden agenda', which--in my mind--validates them further.  Maybe the answer is something as simple as coupling capacitors.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 03:16:45 PM
maarvold wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 12:14

Frankly, I did not expect to be writing this.  I downloaded the samples and concentrated only on the Analog 2", PTHD 48 k (192 internal) and Radar 48 k (internal).  I looped the first 4 bars of the selection and went from analog to PT, analog to PT several times.  What I get is that there is a deep and powerful aspect to the kick drum, a 'stoutness' for lack of a better term, in the analog version and the kick drum clearly drives the track.  With PTHD at 48 k, the kick is no longer the driving force that it is with the analog version.  The point of the attack is there, but my ear is drawn to the drone-y aspect of the bass instead of the assaultive kick like it is in the analog version.  Another way of explaining this is like there is an eq 'focus' control that was highlighting the movement and power of the kick (in the analog version) which has been moved upward somewhere between a 5th and a minor 7th in the PTHD version.  

Analog to Radar 48k (internal) fares better in that the kick still is the driving force, but I hear a difference here as well.  It is just not as substantial as with PTHD.  Radar leaves the intent of the engineering choice more fully intact.  

I was trying to find the final methodology for this test: was analog ever tested for fidelity to the original in the same way that Pro Tools and Radar were (analog to PTHD, analog to Radar, analog to analog)?  Clearly this firestorm all began with issues of fidelity to the source.  Since the true source material is human beings and the performances they create, I would also think the answer to this test (analog to analog) would also be of great general interest.  

If I remember correctly, Ed Meitner (who's DSD converters may be the best-sounding digital I have yet experienced) was the designer of record for the 192 interface--maybe he could shed some light on this controversy.  

Truthfully, I don't know if I could reliably pick out the differences referred to above in an A/B/X test--certainly not one in an unfamiliar room with many people around me, yet my stated results oppose my 'hidden agenda', which--in my mind--validates them further.  Maybe the answer is something as simple as coupling capacitors.  



How do you know which file is which?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on November 20, 2005, 03:26:29 PM
maarvold wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:14

Frankly, I did not expect to be writing this.  I downloaded the samples and concentrated only on the Analog 2", PTHD 48 k (192 internal) and Radar 48 k (internal)
how did you know which was which?  i thought they were randomly numbered 1-9!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 03:28:00 PM
This is getting VERY far away from where it all started, and it was setup to allow intellectuals to convolute the question.

Mixerman said it was a drop of 6db at 50..

I don't know who is a fault, but someone let the bunny loose.

I won't be seeing Steve Albini here anymore. I am not scared to stand up, and point at the 'elephant'. That was a load.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 20, 2005, 03:29:30 PM
maarvold wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:14

I was trying to find the final methodology for this test: was analog ever tested for fidelity to the original in the same way that Pro Tools and Radar were (analog to PTHD, analog to Radar, analog to analog)?  Clearly this firestorm all began with issues of fidelity to the source.  Since the true source material is human beings and the performances they create, I would also think the answer to this test (analog to analog) would also be of great general interest.  



That's a great thought, Mike.  So obvious I'm surprised it didn't come up before.  Certainly would help put things in perspective.

I'm also curious.  I thought those files were supposed to be blind.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 03:37:17 PM
DivideByZero wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 12:28

This is getting VERY far away from where it all started, and it was setup to allow intellectuals to convolute the question.

Mixerman said it was a drop of 6db at 50..

I don't know who is a fault, but someone let the bunny loose.

I won't be seeing Steve Albini here anymore. I am not scared to stand up, and point at the 'elephant'. That was a load.


M


Wrong.

I stated that 3 years ago, merely as a way of painting a picture that the loss was severe. Frankly, I should have never allowed the pundits to force me into painting that picture. Live and learn.

I have been VERY clear since then. I have said repeatedly, that the bottom octave is lopped off, as if someone put an HPF on the playback, lopping off the sub frequencies.

If you want to hold me to -6db at 60hz, an assertion that I have revoked as innnacurate long ago, then there was no reason for the test to be done in the first place. Are you interested in finding out the truth of the mater, or are you interested merely in holding me to that one particular flawed statement?

Mixerman


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Plush on November 20, 2005, 03:45:32 PM
Randy Nicklaus wrote:

". . .Then why didn't it show up on the mixes?

Is it because also Lavry and Nuendo can't handle a 2 track transfer with any resolution at 24/96? Is this also an issue?

I don't know.

--------------------------------------------

The test methodology was ruined by asking listeners to
judge from a third medium (Nuendo.)

The actual meaningful test can only be conducted Live "in situ."

======> Play the 2" through analog electronics and to the Protools converters, switch back and forth from the d/a output of the protools and the analog path. Since both are using the same monitor path, there is no difference introduced.

The reason that THIS is the test, and that an evaluation from the Nuendo is not, is that this is how the transfer engineer would check for a valid (digital equals analog playback) transfer.

It seems simple and straightforward to me. Basically this simple test just duplicates what the engineer with integrity would do to make sure he has an acceptable transfer with full fidelity.

If the bass went away, or the "drive" or "impact" went away,
the system is defective and broken.      
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 03:46:37 PM
The files speak for them selves, with almost as much context as a pre-party CD, almost.

The annomoly you describe, I believe you have heard it, and I believe Bob O. has heard it, and I think it's an unfound phase bug, that may, or may not be repeatable on command... I have no scientific evidence for, or against.

What Steve A. did was cheap as F-N hell, and anyone would be called on that crap.

Every format has it's *things*.

I miss USENET.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 03:50:33 PM
Plush wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 12:45

Randy Nicklaus wrote:

". . .Then why didn't it show up on the mixes?

Is it because also Lavry and Nuendo can't handle a 2 track transfer with any resolution at 24/96? Is this also an issue?

I don't know.

--------------------------------------------

The test methodology was ruined by asking listeners to
judge from a third medium (Nuendo.)

The actual meaningful test can only be conducted Live "in situ."

======> Play the 2" through analog electronics and to the Protools converters, switch back and forth from the d/a output of the protools and the analog path. Since both are using the same monitor path, there is no difference introduced.

The reason that THIS is the test, and that an evaluation from the Nuendo is not, is that this is how the transfer engineer would check for a valid (digital equals analog playback) transfer.

It seems simple and straightforward to me. Basically this simple test just duplicates what the engineer with integrity would do to make sure he has an acceptable transfer with full fidelity.

If the bass went away, or the "drive" or "impact" went away,
the system is defective and broken.      



In this test situation to claim that the problem is now Nuendo, I find suspect at best.

But I am willing to learn.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: groucho on November 20, 2005, 03:56:44 PM
This reminds me of some of what George Lakoff talks about re: how "myth is far more important to human beings than facts. The facts can actually be staring us in the face, but if they contradict an established myth they will have little to no effect."

He was discussing how George Bush managed to get re-elected, but the same seems to hold true here. One would assume that after 3 years of this "low end" claim, someone would have been able to reproduce it in a way that could be posted to the forum for everyone to hear. If a flaw cannot be reproduced and posted, clearly it is of no interest to anyone whether an engineer - no matter how famous - claims to hear it.

Now, we actually have files that clearly demonstrate no shocking lack of low end, yet by and large the community is undisturbed and the debate goes right on as before.

Why? Because Mixerman has very cleverly tapped into a prevailing myth of our time: that there is a discernable, verifyable, measurable FLAW with Pro Tools that renders it unsuitable. It's not just a matter of taste - it's a FLAW!Smile

At some point I became convinced that MM is engaged in a massive practical joke designed to prove the power of myth in the audio world. We'll see if he comes clean at some point...

Meanwhile, it's greatly entertaining...Smile
Chris


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 20, 2005, 03:58:53 PM
Quote:

Frankly, I did not expect to be writing this. I downloaded the samples and concentrated only on the Analog 2", PTHD 48 k (192 internal) and Radar 48 k (internal). I looped the first 4 bars of the selection and went from analog to PT, analog to PT several times. What I get is that there is a deep and powerful aspect to the kick drum, a 'stoutness' for lack of a better term, in the analog version and the kick drum clearly drives the track. With PTHD at 48 k, the kick is no longer the driving force that it is with the analog version. The point of the attack is there, but my ear is drawn to the drone-y aspect of the bass instead of the assaultive kick like it is in the analog version. Another way of explaining this is like there is an eq 'focus' control that was highlighting the movement and power of the kick (in the analog version) which has been moved upward somewhere between a 5th and a minor 7th in the PTHD version.

Analog to Radar 48k (internal) fares better in that the kick still is the driving force, but I hear a difference here as well. It is just not as substantial as with PTHD. Radar leaves the intent of the engineering choice more fully intact.

I was trying to find the final methodology for this test: was analog ever tested for fidelity to the original in the same way that Pro Tools and Radar were (analog to PTHD, analog to Radar, analog to analog)? Clearly this firestorm all began with issues of fidelity to the source. Since the true source material is human beings and the performances they create, I would also think the answer to this test (analog to analog) would also be of great general interest.

If I remember correctly, Ed Meitner (who's DSD converters may be the best-sounding digital I have yet experienced) was the designer of record for the 192 interface--maybe he could shed some light on this controversy.

Truthfully, I don't know if I could reliably pick out the differences referred to above in an A/B/X test--certainly not one in an unfamiliar room with many people around me, yet my stated results oppose my 'hidden agenda', which--in my mind--validates them further. Maybe the answer is something as simple as coupling capacitors.
Michael Aarvold
Audio Engineer




GIANT WHOOPS!!!!

I was referring to 1, 2 and 4 as listed in the methodology (1 = analog 2", 2 = Radar 48 int, 4 = PTHD 48k/192 int).  So maybe I have it assed-backwards (or completely unrelated).  Frankly, there has been so much reading involved in this whole topic that I'm not surprised that that VITAL piece of information (the random aspect of the audio sample posting) got lost in the shuffle for me.  I spent 10 minutes this morning trying to find at least 1 version of the methodology spread across the various topics and rapidly growing page counts.  Maybe there should be a "read only" sticky describing the final methodology, the download procedure and any other FINAL vital information.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 04:06:34 PM
maarvold wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 12:58

Quote:

Frankly, I did not expect to be writing this. I downloaded the samples and concentrated only on the Analog 2", PTHD 48 k (192 internal) and Radar 48 k (internal). I looped the first 4 bars of the selection and went from analog to PT, analog to PT several times. What I get is that there is a deep and powerful aspect to the kick drum, a 'stoutness' for lack of a better term, in the analog version and the kick drum clearly drives the track. With PTHD at 48 k, the kick is no longer the driving force that it is with the analog version. The point of the attack is there, but my ear is drawn to the drone-y aspect of the bass instead of the assaultive kick like it is in the analog version. Another way of explaining this is like there is an eq 'focus' control that was highlighting the movement and power of the kick (in the analog version) which has been moved upward somewhere between a 5th and a minor 7th in the PTHD version.

Analog to Radar 48k (internal) fares better in that the kick still is the driving force, but I hear a difference here as well. It is just not as substantial as with PTHD. Radar leaves the intent of the engineering choice more fully intact.

I was trying to find the final methodology for this test: was analog ever tested for fidelity to the original in the same way that Pro Tools and Radar were (analog to PTHD, analog to Radar, analog to analog)? Clearly this firestorm all began with issues of fidelity to the source. Since the true source material is human beings and the performances they create, I would also think the answer to this test (analog to analog) would also be of great general interest.

If I remember correctly, Ed Meitner (who's DSD converters may be the best-sounding digital I have yet experienced) was the designer of record for the 192 interface--maybe he could shed some light on this controversy.

Truthfully, I don't know if I could reliably pick out the differences referred to above in an A/B/X test--certainly not one in an unfamiliar room with many people around me, yet my stated results oppose my 'hidden agenda', which--in my mind--validates them further. Maybe the answer is something as simple as coupling capacitors.
Michael Aarvold
Audio Engineer




GIANT WHOOPS!!!!

I was referring to 1, 2 and 4 as listed in the methodology (1 = analog 2", 2 = Radar 48 int, 4 = PTHD 48k/192 int).  So maybe I have it assed-backwards (or completely unrelated).  Frankly, there has been so much reading involved in this whole topic that I'm not surprised that that VITAL piece of information (the random aspect) got lost in the shuffle for me.  I spent 10 minutes this morning trying to find at least 1 version of the methodology spread across the various topics and rapidly growing page counts.  


I believe this shows just how much bias can creep into this.

I am not meaning to infer that you are biased against Pro Tools just that when you believed you were listening to analog or pro tools or radar, you really posted the prevailing theories on their sound.

Interesting

In the end though, maybe you will be right - No way to know yet.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: archtop on November 20, 2005, 04:11:53 PM
DivideByZero wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 12:46



What Steve A. did was cheap as F-N hell, and anyone would be called on that crap.





are you kidding me.

the guy(s) go out their way at their own considerable expense
to do this shit for you and I.

So I just wanted to go on record that this is not the way I see it at all.

and the guy DBZ is a fuckstick for  even thinking it

 

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: electrical on November 20, 2005, 04:14:41 PM
DivideByZero wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:46


What Steve A. did was cheap as F-N hell, and anyone would be called on that crap.

Exactly what did I do that was cheap, Mr. Miles Hendrix/DivideByZero from Pluton City, PL? What was cheap?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 20, 2005, 04:25:23 PM
Quote:

...I believe this shows just how much bias can creep into this.

I am not meaning to infer that you are biased against Pro Tools...


This is a pretty funny statement, since I own PTHD (w/ 3 Accel cards), mix almost exclusively 'in the box', and fully believe in 10 years or less that everyone will work 'in the box' all the time (although what software and hardware will be king remains to be seen).  That was my point when I said:
Quote:

 ...yet my stated results oppose my 'hidden agenda', which--in my mind--validates them further...


If I had to guess now, knowing that the audio samples are random, I would probably guess that 1 was PTHD, because--based on a test I did long ago with Brad Cobb's very informal reenactment of the original Mixerman transfer controversy--it has always been my suspicion that, if anything, the 192 was a bit big on the bottom.  But, hey: why don't some of the rest of you guys go on record about what you hear?  Now that I realize the samples are random, I'm really glad I reported truthfully on what I heard (or perceived) and I urge you to do the same.  Maybe this will ultimately help me learn something about my bias.  I welcome it.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 04:28:28 PM
archtop wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:11



are you kidding me.

the guy(s) go out their way at their own considerable expense
to do this shit for you and I.

So I just wanted to go on record that this is not the way I see it at all.

and the guy DBZ is a fuckstick for  even thinking it





Right.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 20, 2005, 04:43:35 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:37



Are you interested in finding out the truth of the mater, or are you interested merely in holding me to that one particular flawed statement?




By all means, let's get to the truth of the matter.

Why don't you give a listen to the files and see if any of them are consistent with your own experience.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: azuolas on November 20, 2005, 04:44:02 PM
minister wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:26

maarvold wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:14

Frankly, I did not expect to be writing this.  I downloaded the samples and concentrated only on the Analog 2", PTHD 48 k (192 internal) and Radar 48 k (internal)
how did you know which was which?  i thought they were randomly numbered 1-9!


He doesn't. All configurations are randomly arranged in these 9 files. He probably read my thread explaining what are the 9 configurations and just matched them with those numbers. Which is INCORRECT. None of the ones he mentioned above actually match to what the conigurations are.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Plush on November 20, 2005, 04:44:25 PM
Nicklaus wrote:
"In this test situation to claim that the problem is now Nuendo, I find suspect at best."

May I ask that you read carefully my former statement?

I posited that the failure has to do with asking people to
judge from a "third medium."

That is because the analog tape is the master and any conversion to digital is not the master.

The point of my former post was that the test should be:
"compare the master to the a/d conversion in real time"

That is NOT what is happening when one is asked to judge the results from listening to files captured on an unrelated machine.

I am trying to argue for a test that is the same as standard working method. Only a member of the high end hi-fi fraternity would make a transfer from tape to two separate daws and then choose which sounds better. An even more egregious mistake in logic would lead one to mistakenly evaluate an analog master from
a digital source unrelated to the target medium.

The engineer should have already qualified which one is accurate.  



   

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 04:45:28 PM
Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test. I am not arguing that some might prefer the PT transfer. I am stating a fact. The PT lops off the bottom octave in the transfer. Many of you don't believe that to be a fact, but I can at least prove it to some of the more vocal people on this board.

Please reveal the original analog file. Then remove all but the 48k transfers. There should only be three files for evaluation.

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: .nathan.kosakowski. on November 20, 2005, 04:47:01 PM
electrical wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 11:33

 I'd like to hear more from those who were there for the initial listening.



i attended the test and am only now getting around to tossing my 2 bits to the fray.  no i do not regularly work on tape, and in fact work with pt as my meager way of making a living.  this was actually my main reason to attend.  it made me increadiably insecure of my work if it was to turn out being siginicantly comprimised.  what i'm trying to say is that i really wanted to see protools do well. surely being the least accomplished of the bunch, yes, it was a nice treat to talk to some intelligent (and opinionated) people, not something i get to do often.  and maybe i'm a dick, but i just didn't give a shit what the enigmatic mr. albini thought of each pass.  i am a skeptic, if i can't be convinced overwhelmingly, that sucks...  so as cool as it was to get little asides from respectible people about their widely varying opinions, i've got no appreciable reputation to protect, i didn't even know anyone and could be wrong and dissappear if i made a fool of myself.

as far as the initial full mix listens as it was bounced to the lavry's, i did miss pt sync'd to bigben at 96 and radar 96.  BUT, i interpreted the 'who hears bass differences' to be an overall question.  yes, tape vs. pt internal 48k was different, but i was really knocked over by imaging and those oh so sensitive upper mids.  i thought the low end difference wasn't as appricable as the different formats progressed on and will do timealigned a/b's (blind!) on some adams later tonight.   i really noticed differences on the digi192 against itself with different clocks and rates, but i digress... i made a comment to steve during the test and i think it was made on the forum as well.  if the differences cannot survive the transition to a commercial delivery format, does it really matter at the present state of technology and media formats?  will i work on improving, yes, will i loose sleep, not so much ('cept for the first night cause i starting visualizing phase shifted bass waveforms)

my criticisms, yes it was chaotic, i had to many great little conversations with folks like the digi designer (who has some ideas that answer all of this, ill maybe post later).  it is only my own fault for not staying focused.  i tried to maintain a listening position during the full song bounces, but did move around trying to find an overly sensitive lowend node to get a upperhand on observing.  blind timealigned tests would be great.  there also, despite the overzelous efforts to plan ahead, a good deal of confusion as to the details of things.  with many people not from the forum (and that being a good thing) not everyone listened to the same thing.  it was very easy to get caught up in listening to the many OTHER differences than lowend.

during the tests i tried to find 'landmarks' as its called, a riff or sections of notes to repeatedly compare, and only a bit of the frequency to compare therein.  it all could have been more clinical, and i found in talking to people there was a lot of eye rolling 'i don't really give a fuck this test seems dumb' during the bounes and abx's.  it could have been usful to help everyone focus by doing a test were the listeners were asked only focus on the lowend, then only imaging, etc.

i really wanted to have the pt interal be an underdog and it really was not.  does this changed anyones working habits, not a chance.  it has heightened my sensitivity to the issues and how to work _with_ them, not throw up my hands because i don't own a studer...

too longer, verbose, and nobody cares about my opinion anyhow (thought a certainly do have one).


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on November 20, 2005, 04:49:39 PM
azuolas wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:44

minister wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:26

maarvold wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:14

Frankly, I did not expect to be writing this.  I downloaded the samples and concentrated only on the Analog 2", PTHD 48 k (192 internal) and Radar 48 k (internal)
how did you know which was which?  i thought they were randomly numbered 1-9!


He doesn't. All configurations are randomly arranged in these 9 files. He probably read my thread explaining what are the 9 configurations and just matched them with those numbers. Which is INCORRECT. None of the ones he mentioned above actually match to what the conigurations are.
ah, right.  i saw his follow up post.

interesting how, i think, his "prior" knowledge affected his ears.  i don't hear 1,2, & 4, whatever they are, as he did.  sure looks like bias to me.  and a good argument for double-blind.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 04:52:43 PM
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 13:43

Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:37



Are you interested in finding out the truth of the mater, or are you interested merely in holding me to that one particular flawed statement?




By all means, let's get to the truth of the matter.

Why don't you give a listen to the files and see if any of them are consistent with your own experience.

-R


Excuse me. Why are you avoiding taking me up on my offer? I can and will demonstrate this for you, Rail, John, and Randy personally. I would think you'd jump at the opportunity, given how sure you are that I'm wrong.

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 04:54:56 PM
Plush wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 13:44

Nicklaus wrote:
"In this test situation to claim that the problem is now Nuendo, I find suspect at best."

May I ask that you read carefully my former statement?

I posited that the failure has to do with asking people to
judge from a "third medium."

That is because the analog tape is the master and any conversion to digital is not the master.

The point of my former post was that the test should be:
"compare the master to the a/d conversion in real time"

That is NOT what is happening when one is asked to judge the results from listening to files captured on an unrelated machine.

I am trying to argue for a test that is the same as standard working method. Only a member of the high end hi-fi fraternity would make a transfer from tape to two separate daws and then choose which sounds better. An even more egregious mistake in logic would lead one to mistakenly evaluate an analog master from
a digital source unrelated to the target medium.

The engineer should have already qualified which one is accurate.  



   





I do understand what you are saying.  But the methodology was posted for and discussed for weeks.

After the fact, is a bit odd.  The storage medium was beat to death too.

I did say early on that if in fact it is the ADC converter, the test could be as simple as playing the 2" thru the converters in input.  Go between buss and output of the 192 and there you have the ADC and DAC going on at once.  No issue here.  Simple A/B test with no need for time code or locking a 2" or moving tape or not or different transport buttons being pushed hence giving "it" away.

I do beleive on the other hand that the idea of a final storage and playback and ABx test was a good idea.  If it was executed properly is another story.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 20, 2005, 04:58:53 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:45

Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test. I am not arguing that some might prefer the PT transfer. I am stating a fact. The PT lops off the bottom octave in the transfer. Many of you don't believe that to be a fact, but I can at least prove it to some of the more vocal people on this board.

Please reveal the original analog file. Then remove all but the 48k transfers. There should only be three files for evaluation.

Mixerman


The PT files will be the only  ones with the missing bottom octave, right?  Shouldn't it be fairly easy to pick these out?

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on November 20, 2005, 05:04:15 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:45

Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test.
according to what i understand your claims to be, you should be able to pick them out.

i am not saying you are wrong, but you very clear about what you found.  if true, i would think you could find it again.  fairly easily.  or no?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 05:13:38 PM
Again, it becomes a matter of preference when you don't know what you're comparing against.

Please tell us which is the analog file, and then let us compare them to only two digital files.

This thing was made WAY to complicated.

Thanks,

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 05:23:19 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:13


This thing was made WAY to complicated.

Thanks,

Mixerman



I couldn't agree more.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: azuolas on November 20, 2005, 05:30:18 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:45

Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test. I am not arguing that some might prefer the PT transfer. I am stating a fact. The PT lops off the bottom octave in the transfer. Many of you don't believe that to be a fact, but I can at least prove it to some of the more vocal people on this board.

Please reveal the original analog file. Then remove all but the 48k transfers. There should only be three files for evaluation.

Mixerman


None of the files will be revealed until the end (Nov23rd, 11PM CST). Based on your statements your maid should be able to pick out 6 out 9 files in this and identify the loss of the low octave.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on November 20, 2005, 05:30:27 PM
mixerman,

really, i am not being a dick, i am asking out of curiosity.  whatever the numbers, you claim that the 2" analog in your test had a certain bass level.  when you transferred it to PT, you lost a significant amount of lower octave bass.  (maybe 6dB or so at 50 or 60...or some such numbers.).  it follows that this behavior should show up here too.

i would think that, if what you say is true, the file with the most bass would be the 2" and the and the ones with 6db less lower octave signal would be the PT files.  on your system, you should be able to pick them out.  you did before.


if it was revealed which was which and you made some interpretations of how you thought the DAW versions related, i'd be very suspect of that analysis.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 20, 2005, 05:33:46 PM
electrical wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 08:55

I can see how someone would assume I would be biased. Some of you have suggested as much already. All I can say is that I don't believe I was influenced by anything other than what I was hearing.


You knew what you were hearing, because apparently you were cueing it. THAT's the bias.

The "control" group taking the blind test DIDN'T know what you were playing - hence the term "blind." You were the single exception NOT listening "blind" - hence the term "bias."

It doesn't matter if you prefer working with analog, or digital, or are buddies with Mixerman, or whatever...all that is irrelevant. What IS relevant is you were not listening blind like the rest of the control group taking the test was. Which makes your perception inherently biased against the control group's perceptions.

Hopefully we are all clear on that detail.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: azuolas on November 20, 2005, 05:34:18 PM
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:58

Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:45

Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test. I am not arguing that some might prefer the PT transfer. I am stating a fact. The PT lops off the bottom octave in the transfer. Many of you don't believe that to be a fact, but I can at least prove it to some of the more vocal people on this board.

Please reveal the original analog file. Then remove all but the 48k transfers. There should only be three files for evaluation.

Mixerman


The PT files will be the only  ones with the missing bottom octave, right?  Shouldn't it be fairly easy to pick these out?

-R


Correct. If mixerman's statement is valid you should be able to pick out 6 out 9 files without any trouble. If we reveal any files it will defeat the purpose of blind test. The claim was that it would plain as a day.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 05:36:11 PM
azuolas wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:30

Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:45

Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test. I am not arguing that some might prefer the PT transfer. I am stating a fact. The PT lops off the bottom octave in the transfer. Many of you don't believe that to be a fact, but I can at least prove it to some of the more vocal people on this board.

Please reveal the original analog file. Then remove all but the 48k transfers. There should only be three files for evaluation.

Mixerman


None of the files will be revealed until the end (Nov23rd, 11PM CST). Based on your statements your maid should be able to pick out 6 out 9 files in this and identify the loss of the low octave.



Then your test is moot.

It's too many files to compare.

If you'd like to limit it to three files, (the 48k transfer) I'll tell you which one is missing the bottom octave. But I'm not going through 9 files made from different sampling rates. That's absurd.

Mixerman


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 05:36:50 PM
azuolas wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:30

Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:45

Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test. I am not arguing that some might prefer the PT transfer. I am stating a fact. The PT lops off the bottom octave in the transfer. Many of you don't believe that to be a fact, but I can at least prove it to some of the more vocal people on this board.

Please reveal the original analog file. Then remove all but the 48k transfers. There should only be three files for evaluation.

Mixerman


None of the files will be revealed until the end (Nov23rd, 11PM CST). Based on your statements your maid should be able to pick out 6 out 9 files in this and identify the loss of the low octave.



I really believe the studio and staff should remain neutral, including editorial comments.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 05:40:34 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:36

azuolas wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:30

Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:45

Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test. I am not arguing that some might prefer the PT transfer. I am stating a fact. The PT lops off the bottom octave in the transfer. Many of you don't believe that to be a fact, but I can at least prove it to some of the more vocal people on this board.

Please reveal the original analog file. Then remove all but the 48k transfers. There should only be three files for evaluation.

Mixerman


None of the files will be revealed until the end (Nov23rd, 11PM CST). Based on your statements your maid should be able to pick out 6 out 9 files in this and identify the loss of the low octave.



Then your test is moot.

It's too many files to compare.

If you'd like to limit it to three files, (the 48k transfer) I'll tell you which one is missing the bottom octave. But I'm not going through 9 files made from different sampling rates. That's absurd.

Mixerman






You asked for the 96K test.  The clocks on the other hand....
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 20, 2005, 06:02:49 PM
Since I commented on 1,2 and 4, I went back and tried another test.  I made a Master Fader (in PTHD) and inserted a [dual mono] MDW EQ across the 2 mix, using a 12 dB/octave low pass in the 2nd position (all other bands bypassed).  Then I looped the 1st 4 bars and compared 1 to 2 to 4.  Even with the filter separating out most of the [distracting] mids & top, it is still difficult to tell one from the other all that reliably: it takes a good amount of concentration.  I would now say 2 has the most low bottom of the 3 samples.  I would also say 1 & 2 are more similar to each other than 4 is to either.  Additionally, I feel like 4 is slightly more truncated on the bottom.  Each sample, when scrutinized in this way, has a subtly different character: almost like the difference between adjacent bands of the 1/3 octave filtered pink noise Coco (aka Steve Brandon--LA monitor voicing guy) let me record many years ago from his White Instruments generator.  Although this 'banding' aspect is subtly superimposed over the signal, to me 4 clearly feels like the 'highest band' when thought of in this light.  FWIW, I feel like my room provides good pitch definition and extension to around 27 Hz, due to fairly extensive use of membrane absorbers, digital room correction and fairly extended 3 way series crossover speakers (operating full range) combined with dual subs.  In terms of understanding what's happening in the low end, I would put it up against (and above) many commercial studios I have been in here in LA, with the exception of most of the movie scoring stages.  That said, it's my $.02
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 06:03:26 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:36

azuolas wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:30

Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:45

Frankly, The analog file should be revealed, and the blind test should be with Digital A and Digital B in comparison to the revealed analog file. Otherwise, this merely becoms a preference test. I am not arguing that some might prefer the PT transfer. I am stating a fact. The PT lops off the bottom octave in the transfer. Many of you don't believe that to be a fact, but I can at least prove it to some of the more vocal people on this board.

Please reveal the original analog file. Then remove all but the 48k transfers. There should only be three files for evaluation.

Mixerman


None of the files will be revealed until the end (Nov23rd, 11PM CST). Based on your statements your maid should be able to pick out 6 out 9 files in this and identify the loss of the low octave.



Then your test is moot.

It's too many files to compare.

If you'd like to limit it to three files, (the 48k transfer) I'll tell you which one is missing the bottom octave. But I'm not going through 9 files made from different sampling rates. That's absurd.

Mixerman






FYI the files are 14 secs (ish) each and a little under 8 megs each.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 20, 2005, 06:12:45 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 18:03


FYI the files are 14 secs (ish) each and a little under 8 megs each.


I'm gonna listen tomorrow in my own space (ADAMS, JBL's and a few bass heavy corners in the room).  I don't know why MM, or anyone for that matter, is getting bent out of shape here.  It seems like it's a great chance for everyone to dig in and analyze some files and really investigate some converter and clocking differences--and certainly at this point the jury is still out.

This test may very well show exactly what MM has been talking about.  

(Mike Arv, I remember you from Castle Oaks.  Still there?)

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 20, 2005, 06:15:17 PM
A couple of thoughts.

First, I have to go and re-read the last couple pages of this thread.  There's a lot of stuff up there.  But in the short term here...

1)  Here's a theoretical question for everyone.  As I had asked in an earlier post, couldn't tones help us determine the question of low end loss?  On the 2" analog, I'm presume that there are tones at 1k, 10k and either 50hz or 100hz (or both).  If, on the analog, all these tones are returning 0db at the desk, then when transferred to any other format and then played back, the relationship between the three (or four) tones shouldn't change.  Thoughts anyone?  If I attend the L.A. tests (which I have PM'ed Mixerman about), I would ask that we consider doing that before even delving into any audio.  I think it would be a good place to start.

HOWEVER,

I do realize that tones don't tell the entire story.  They don't address headroom, impact, general sonic characteristics, etc.  Ever notice how many microphone graphs look so similar yet the mics they represent sound so different?

But still, I think it would be a good, and perhaps revealing place to start.

2)  Mixerman, I think that in a post above, you might have stated that I (along with others) was sure you are wrong on this.  That is not the case.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised by anything.  I have always loved the sound (especially low end) of Radar, but I have never run tests like these myself, so I really have no preconceived notion about any of it.  I grew up on analog and love its sound dearly, with some reservations about it, and I have long argued that I'm not convinced that any digital format is a step forward in terms of sonics.  Perhaps I misrepresented my position in some earlier post which gave you the impression that I felt you were wrong on this.  

OK.  I'll try to read the posts above to comment further on other aspects of the topic.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 20, 2005, 06:25:56 PM
[meant to be Private Message]
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 20, 2005, 06:41:26 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 22:36

I really believe the studio and staff should remain neutral, including editorial comments.


I would agree, but unfortunately it's a little late. The gentleman who was cueing the playback media (Mr. Albini) has already posted some rather lengthy, highly detailed editorial comments of his own; he essentially told us all what to listen for in the samples.

A purely scientific blind A/B/X test entails more than just playing the samples and then immediately and openly discussing the samples themselves. The process must be followed through the stages of
1) collating the responses from the individual members of the blind control group,
2) analyzing the resulting data,
3) and then accurately publishing that data.

When the administrator(s) of the test openly discuss the nature of the samples before those final stages of the procedure are performed, that information can skew the perceptions of the control group and affect their responses, and thus spoil the objectivity and accuracy of the test results.

Mr. Albini appears to have committed that error in this case - unwittingly perhaps, but no less effectively - at least for the purpose of surveying the online-posted files. To his credit, his conduct in the control room at CRC seems not to have skewed the response of THAT control group, the results of which seem fairly definitive. But as an administrator of this test, Mr. Albini's prematurely published accounts of the programme test material, which should have remained confidential until the end of the "term" of the test, has clearly thrown the entire proceeding into an unwarranted state of confusion and disarray, and that's unfortunate.

And it's something we can all learn from. I propose that in the future, if and when "we" conduct a similar test, there are parameters laid out in advance which govern the conduct of any administrators of said testing material.

Agreed?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 20, 2005, 06:56:54 PM
Let it be clear that while he does work for CRC, Azuolas is the gate keeper.

He is in a unique position, as he is the only one who knows which file is which.

I think it is rather obvious that it should remain this way.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: tmheli on November 20, 2005, 07:05:47 PM
I ran an FFT analysis of the 9 sample files.

I made a chart that compares the frequency range from 20-60Hz.

There are two of the nine samples that stand out as having more bass in this region.  There is one of the nine that is lacking beyond all others.  Aside from that, the other six appear roughly identical.

The difference at any given frequency between the "most bass" sample and the "least bass" sample is less than 1dB.

This is, of course, not the right way to do this analysis.  The frequency analysis should be done on the output directly from the 2" and from the digital box(es).

Should I post a chart with the analysis results, or would that ruin the nature of this whole thing?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: dodlum on November 20, 2005, 07:11:32 PM
Just to contribute...

I downoaded the files and played them back to my maid on a variety speakers and, no she couldn't hear the loss of the low octave,

Hope this helps,

David
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 20, 2005, 07:11:43 PM
Mixerman quote:

Quote:

Please tell us which is the analog file, and then let us compare them to only two digital files.



MM, you and Steve, having heard this glaring bass problem plain as day, should be able to find the pink elephant in the sky instantly.

Your making excuses now.

Hell I have one for you, I would love to see if you and Steve could pick the 2" mix.

Should be a piece of cake for the two of you.

Right?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: xonlocust on November 20, 2005, 07:14:47 PM
good. fucking. god. a long read through this thread.

i was at the event.  i rarely post up here because i still consider myself a relatively new guy in the field learning the craft. (though people do pay me occasionally to make thier records and i've made a handful on the playing side as well).  i read this forum every day as part of my interent interning, so like an intern - i try and listen a lot and shut the fuck up unless explicitly asked my opinion.  

i'll just try and be honest about what i was thinking as the night progressed and risk looking like a jackass.

as the 2" mix came up i was pretty excited because it turns out the band was a band which i already own the final cd of (though this track isn't on the store bought cd) and completely coincidentally, i was listening to the cd about 3 hrs before the test at work.  i'll be completely honest, i'm a fan of steve's work, the band we were listening to, i have worked at electrical (though am not employed by steve), and 90% of the work i do (however small that is) is on tape.  i'm a small fry freelancer and dude who plays in bands.  so going in, i think i may have had a bias, and that was definitely in my mind when the question was posed.

i did hear a difference btw the tape and PT at the lower resolutions.  i'll admit though, PT sounded much better than i thought it would.  as i heard playback i thought, "fuck, that sounds pretty good - but wait, is it cuz i'm rocking to the band, or the drum sound, or xyz? do i hear the 6db like mixerman heard? i dunno - but fuck, i also don't pretend to have golden ears - i'm still a young guy, it's different indeed, but i dunno how to put it.  my relative inexperience leaves me a little ill-equipped to clearly identify what my mind heard into qualitative words.  the differences i heard were subtle.

when the question was posed - am i gonna shoot my hand up, the young guy in a room of seasoned professionals, probably with some bit of bias - and look like a jackass? not me...  i didn't trust myself as a professional enough in the game to have the balls to stand up infront of everyone else to say what i percieved or didn't.  FF to the end of the night when everyone had been there a while and was more comfortable and especially seeing others scores on the AB tests, i realized i wasn't totally a hack - maybe just a mild hack... Smile especially as comments come out, i dont think i'm the only one who heard something funny but didn't raise thier hand.

one difference i heard btw PT and tape was this wave of bass frequencies.  i visualized this large rolling thing eminating  from lower edge of the soffit - i kept looking for it in the kick, but the attack was basically the same as far as i could tell, as was the rest of the shell - and the bass gtr wasn't really super cleanly defined, as i could tell, the top fuzz of it remained pretty consistent which also confused me.  it did seem to be lower harmonics of the fundamentals though.  i can't identify what generated that wave (and it really felt like the ocean very subtly ebbing and flowing on a completely different level from the rest of the song...)  

also at play on this was learning the material. at some point we heard the 2" again (perhaps after the 3rd PT pass?) and the differnces came up much clearer again.  after the 7th iteration of the song (at 2.5min or whatever each pass) you had to scan your brain to "what did i hear 15 min ago when i last heard the tape?"  at the time i heard it, but did i really hear it, or did i think i heard it or what?   was that at the same point in the song or am i confusing what i heard back then to a different part of the song - cuz that last pass sounded pretty good to me.  i wish i could A/B them to see though...  it may be easier for steve to notice because he knows what was there in the first place.  the rest of the room had 1 chance to listen and memorize what we're looking for in subsequent passes.

as for the AB tests - i got 9/18.    some were incredibly difficult to tell for me.  some passes blantantly stood out to me as "awesome" vs "suck" and others i couldn't really tell.  my methodology was ok, A sounds better than B, and does X sound good or bad now compared?  but if i couldn't tell much of a difference, i had to guess... i THINK it was B...  i would like to think that the one's i couldnt tell were the lower res PT ones, but i dont know.  and does this just prove that maybe i like tape better or that there's a difference in low end, i don't know.  without a doubt i clearly heard differences btw some the versions. what is what, i don't know.   one thing though, i do feel the differences were easier to percieve on the first capture (pre-nuendo).  maybe this was cuz our ears were fresher or we hadn't heard the song 85 times by then, or the A/D conversion had smoothed out the differences - i don;t know.

for me usually it was the mids that separated them.  i think my LF listening isn't as refined.  the difference i heard was subtle in my book (but yes i heard it. was it willful or actual? was or am i biased? who knows...), but i've made far fewer records than the majority of that room and a lot of you reading this.  maybe i'm a case of the maid.  or not. whatever that tells you.

and yes, i stood in pretty much the same spot for all passes.

it seems like i could go on for pages without saying anything and saying something at the same time.  i am really glad i got to take part in this and wish everyone else reading could do it themselves.  reading everyone's at home opinion, i just wish you could have been there to form your own perception.  i also wish i could articulate my thoughts more clearly.  the night made me realize once again, how completely insane audio engineering is. it made me realize at once how much, and how little i know - and what a complete mindfuck the entire process of listening is - how your brain seems to re-equalize things on the fly and so many more things... i think it's very easy for the rest of the internet to as a previous poster put, be monday morning QBs and speculate about 5hrs where you weren't there. there are just so many small details that seem impossible to convey on an internet forum.

i'll stop rambling, but i thought it was important to get another person who was actually in the room's thoughts in. it was great to meet those of you who i talked to - truly a bunch of good, professional people. honestly, i wish i could articulate this in a more clear manner, becuase i don't think this is my finest example.

one of the major reasons i wanted to attend the event was to help determine what i want to buy for my studio.  personally, i left wanting to buy a 2" for my purposes - but that's an entirely different thread...

hope that helps some....



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RMoore on November 20, 2005, 07:17:15 PM
[quote title=R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:07]
Ryan Moore wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 12:05

very interesting - thanks to those who did the test,
i was very intruiged by the idea of bass loss in PT / digid and was curious why that element of the test seemed not to have recieved much focus , especially when assumedly some participants had even travelled in from out of town,
btw - the last post from steve albini with bits of his internal thought processes, how he hears bits of  mix,  etc was a CLASSIC imo, personally way more thought provoking as it pertains to recording and music production than the whole digi discussion,...
i hope someone can put the pt bass thing to rest once and for all,
that would be mind blowing should it turn out that the DD converters crap out on dynamic material




R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:07

[

Are you saying this wasn't dynamic material?



no i don't mean the chicago test material - sorry for any confusion,
i meant that i thought the possibility  was raised by some that something happened on the low end with pt / digi d converters on dynamic material containing drums etc that might not show up being tested at the factory with sine waves / pink noise


R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:07

[
And what do you mean by the mind blowing comment?


i just meant that if it turned out to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that indeed low frequencies were, shall we say 'attenuated' in pt and didi d hardware - this fact would be;
shocking
stunning
mind blowing etc


[btw this keyboard is busted hence the lack of capitals,]
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 07:26:49 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:11

Mixerman quote:

Quote:

Please tell us which is the analog file, and then let us compare them to only two digital files.



MM, you and Steve, having heard this glaring bass problem plain as day, should be able to find the pink elephant in the sky instantly.

Your making excuses now.

Hell I have one for you, I would love to see if you and Steve could pick the 2" mix.

Should be a piece of cake for the two of you.

Right?


I have listened through several times.  There is no doubt differences in the files, but they do sound full range, clean and well done.

The dynamics of the drummer is there loud and clear, the track is dense but clean.

Not compressed and limited, which is always a big plus.

I have always felt I have very good "ears" but to pick out the 2"? If I had heard it in the room, maybe.  Just cold from 9 files?  Not too sure.

On these Nuendo files, there is no "glaring" bottom end difference as has been overstated in the past.  Steve did point out the obvious things to look for in the files, but everyone had pretty much posted the same things would be the case before the test.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 20, 2005, 07:29:11 PM
Quote:

Then your test is moot.

It's too many files to compare.

If you'd like to limit it to three files, (the 48k transfer) I'll tell you which one is missing the bottom octave. But I'm not going through 9 files made from different sampling rates. That's absurd.

Mixerman


Yeah, let's...........dumb this thing down... and make it easier for the maid to hear it.
Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Hedging......Hedging......Hedging......Hedging......Hedging. .....

You know your amazing, "the test is moot" because your to lazy to go thru the files.

Your a self  professed Jedi,



f i n d


t h e  


pink


e l e p h a n t.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: canada on November 20, 2005, 07:30:54 PM
I'm grabbing some popcorn, this is fucking ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 20, 2005, 07:36:35 PM
OK guys.  I've listened to the files over my trusty Sony MDR-V6 headphones.  I've used these things for years and know them pretty well.  I posted a few of my choices on the other thread, but I wanted to say to everyone on this thread:

Let's try to simply pick which file is the "best" sounding.  I vote that we do that with these files.  Steve claimed in his posts that he heard the difference in the room quite clearly, and Mixerman seems to think that in his tests, the results were not subtle.  I gotta tell y'all, I'm not hearing lots of differences in these files.  Certainly nothing glaring.

So far, I like #8 the best.  

What do you guys think?

Mixerman, it only took me a few minutes to download all the files, so you should really try it and see what you think.  Steve, you too.  I'm being serious here.  At least to me, this shit is tough and a cool little ear test.  Does either of you hear an obvious glaring difference in these files?  

Come on, guys, let's take a stab at what sounds best and then have it revealed in a week or whatever.  We might all learn some stuff!

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rick Sutton on November 20, 2005, 07:39:01 PM
Curve Dominant wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:41


Mr. Albini's prematurely published accounts of the programme test material, which should have remained confidential until the end of the "term" of the test, has clearly thrown the entire proceeding into an unwarranted state of confusion and disarray, and that's unfortunate.




Maybe from a purely scientific point of view, but since recording music and evaluating the results is also about art, I am very thankful for Mr. Albini's posts. I have followed this "test" with great interest and since I also have invested many decades of my life in the pursuit of recordings that do some justice to the music I also have developed my own thoughts on the positives and negatives of many recording systems. I currently have in my studio both 2" analog and PTHD and use both on a regular basis. I hear differences in the systems and wouldn't for a moment deny that others hear differences (probably different from mine) also. I also have been mixing to a Sonic Solutions System for about seven years now. It sounds different than all other digital systems that I have encountered.
I don't personally find that i'm losing an octave of information on the bottom with PTHD and haven't measured any low end loss....but....to my ears it is a light sounding system compared to 2"and the Sonic system. PTHD just has a lighter bottom character to it. I noticed it when I switched from Mix Plus to HD. It took me a while to get used to. I'm now ok with it and like it much better than the Mix Plus...but the character shift was noticable.
Anyway, back to Mr. Albini's comments. My unscientific feeling about this whole thread is that I got more real info about how it felt to be involved in this testing process and insights into the evaluation process from Mr. Albini's posts than from all the build up  and current speculation and blind testing etc. I don't really care how it all comes out as I'll go on making my decisions based on what I hear from my control room but please don't ask that some people refrain from posting 'cause they may upset the scientific nature of the test. FUCK the test, give me more of Albini ( and honest to God, I wouldn't know the guy or what he records from squat as the fields of music I work in are more acoustic and slighly off the normal radar) 'cause it's through his thoughts I can see that their are others out there that share a passion for their craft and have the ability to express their observations and even their doubts in an open and illuminating fashion that I find very thought provoking....whether I ultimately agree or disagree with his conclusions I want to hear what the man is thinking.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: tmheli on November 20, 2005, 07:44:56 PM
If I could make a suggestion as to how this test could be done in a meaningful way...

I understood the point to be this:

Make an evaluation as to whether or not there is a loss (or general corruption) of the low-frequency content when multitrack masters are dumped into ProTools.

I can see two good ways to make this evaluation.

1) Use a known-flawless frequency analysis tool, and perform an analysis on the low-frequency content coming out of the tape machine and also on the content coming out of the digital box (to which the tape was dumped).  I would think a single mono channel with bass and drums would be best for this analysis.

2) Use blind listening tests with a large enough sample of listeners.

Is it best to focus on listeners who have advanced critical listening skills, or to include "average" folks in the listening test?  I won't answer that.

But a listening test should not be done with multiple people in the room.  Do it right.  Have there be one listener at a time.  Sitting in the Big Chair.  In the sweet spot.  Otherwise, what's the point?

Of course by the time the audio's been dumped into the wav files we're all listening to, there's no point in even trying to compare.  Let's not kid ourselves about that either.

Scott

PS - a fun little test can be implemented in the blind listening...  play the exact same track two times in a row and see what differences a listener perceives.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 07:47:35 PM
tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:44



PS - a fun little test can be implemented in the blind listening...  play the exact same track two times in a row and see what differences a listener perceives.


Isn't that what ABx is like some of the time?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RMoore on November 20, 2005, 07:55:35 PM
with all the millions of pt users in the world you'd think if there was 6 db attenuation at 50-60 hz that more people might have noticed or is everyone still mixing on ns 10's
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: tmheli on November 20, 2005, 08:10:17 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 18:47

tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:44



PS - a fun little test can be implemented in the blind listening...  play the exact same track two times in a row and see what differences a listener perceives.


Isn't that what ABx is like some of the time?


I think psychologically it's different, if the listener is under the impression that they are only listening to A vs B, A vs B, A vs B.  When in reality it could be A vs A, A vs A, B vs A.  I think the results from that type of test would hyper-isolate any people who actually *can* hear the difference.

I just made a wav file that consists of the first 0:03.596 of the least-bassy track followed by the first 0:03.596 of the most-bassy track.  It's been looping for a couple minutes now.  Even though the FFT told me the difference is roughly 0.3dB at each frequency 20-60Hz, I can still pick which is which, in this direct of a comparison, every time.  It's not hard.

I can only imagine in a high-caliber listening environment, and if the analog hadn't been dumped to 96/24.

Is there a way I can get this wav file (~4MB) to anybody who wants it?  It's pretty telling.

Scott
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 08:16:36 PM
tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:10

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 18:47

tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:44



PS - a fun little test can be implemented in the blind listening...  play the exact same track two times in a row and see what differences a listener perceives.


Isn't that what ABx is like some of the time?


I think psychologically it's different, if the listener is under the impression that they are only listening to A vs B, A vs B, A vs B.  When in reality it could be A vs A, A vs A, B vs A.  I think the results from that type of test would hyper-isolate any people who actually *can* hear the difference.

I just made a wav file that consists of the first 0:03.596 of the least-bassy track followed by the first 0:03.596 of the most-bassy track.  It's been looping for a couple minutes now.  Even though the FFT told me the difference is roughly 0.3dB at each frequency 20-60Hz, I can still pick which is which, in this direct of a comparison, every time.  It's not hard.

I can only imagine in a high-caliber listening environment, and if the analog hadn't been dumped to 96/24.

Is there a way I can get this wav file (~4MB) to anybody who wants it?  It's pretty telling.

Scott



Didn't you say that once a file has been dumped into the WAV format it's useless anyway?

A couple of points why your file would not be useful to me.

The way this was done Friday it's known that the files haven't been altered on their way to each listener downloading them.

Going in and out of your system?  I'll pass.

Once you have opened them and edited?  I'm not going there.

Any of us can edit two or more of these tracks together, that's not hard to do.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: tmheli on November 20, 2005, 08:22:38 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:16

Once you have opened them and edited?  I'm not going there.

Any of us can edit two or more of these tracks together, that's not hard to do.



Agreed 100%  May I recommend a loop that consists of the first 0:03.596 of files #2 and #6 spliced in a way that you can play it back as an infinte loop of ABABABABAB etc.  I will not say which is which.

As of now, I'm up to 4/4 guessing correctly which is the less bassy and which is the more bassy.  Every time I've matched the results of the FFT.

I am playing back using Adobe Audition, using the stock crap-ass soundcard in my laptop, with the lowest-end Shure earbud headphones.

4 out of 4 and counting.

I highly encourage everyone to make their own file so they know it hasn't been tampered with.  Excellent point.

Quote:

Didn't you say that once a file has been dumped into the WAV format it's useless anyway?


The fact that there's a small but measurable and audible difference suggests to me that there should be at least as much, if not more, of a difference in the control room.  So what I meant was, the right way to do an A/B of an analog source versus a digital source definitely does not involve dumping the analog source to wav before making the comparison.  I was speaking in more idealized terms.  Even in the less-than-ideal situation I'm in, I can still both measure and perceive a difference.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 20, 2005, 08:34:20 PM
electrical wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:33

I am also aware of a psychological effect that I have fallen victim-to in the past; whenever I play a recording I've done in front of other people, it invariably sounds like shit to me at the time. It doesn't matter whether it's the drummer's roommate, the label guy, a journalist, another engineer or just someone at a party. If I have to play something I've recorded in front of other people, I think it sounds like shit.


In this particular case...It wasn't just you, Steve. It really did sound like shit.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom what exactly inspired you to provide this particular bit of programme material for this particular test.

To your credit, it worked, in a way, I guess, for the purpose of the test: There was <60Hz content present. Other than that, I couldn't have come up with less helpful content myself if I tried. Then again, Mutt Lange wasn't around to volunteer content material, so I guess we should be grateful for your contribution, right?

Quote:

There is yet more to write, but I am going to work now.


Work is more important...stick with that. I know I will, after this debacle.

The one major thing The Curve learned from this life episode is: Get the fuck out of the internet, and get back to working in the real world.

Peace out y'all...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 08:43:16 PM
Curve Dominant wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:34

electrical wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:33

I am also aware of a psychological effect that I have fallen victim-to in the past; whenever I play a recording I've done in front of other people, it invariably sounds like shit to me at the time. It doesn't matter whether it's the drummer's roommate, the label guy, a journalist, another engineer or just someone at a party. If I have to play something I've recorded in front of other people, I think it sounds like shit.


In this particular case...It wasn't just you, Steve. It really did sound like shit.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom what exactly inspired you to provide this particular bit of programme material for this particular test.

To your credit, it worked, in a way, I guess, for the purpose of the test: There was <60Hz content present. Other than that, I couldn't have come up with less helpful content myself if I tried. Then again, Mutt Lange wasn't around to volunteer content material, so I guess we should be grateful for your contribution, right?

Quote:

There is yet more to write, but I am going to work now.


Work is more important...stick with that. I know I will, after this debacle.

The one major thing The Curve learned from this life episode is: Get the fuck out of the internet, and get back to working in the real world.

Peace out y'all...




You have got to be kidding.

It is amazing to me that anyone could be so unprofessional and rude in public.

It only shows your limitations however.  No one else.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 08:45:09 PM
tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:22

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:16

Once you have opened them and edited?  I'm not going there.

Any of us can edit two or more of these tracks together, that's not hard to do.



Agreed 100%  May I recommend a loop that consists of the first 0:03.596 of files #2 and #6 spliced in a way that you can play it back as an infinte loop of ABABABABAB etc.  I will not say which is which.

As of now, I'm up to 4/4 guessing correctly which is the less bassy and which is the more bassy.  Every time I've matched the results of the FFT.

I am playing back using Adobe Audition, using the stock crap-ass soundcard in my laptop, with the lowest-end Shure earbud headphones.

4 out of 4 and counting.

I highly encourage everyone to make their own file so they know it hasn't been tampered with.  Excellent point.

Quote:

Didn't you say that once a file has been dumped into the WAV format it's useless anyway?


The fact that there's a small but measurable and audible difference suggests to me that there should be at least as much, if not more, of a difference in the control room.  So what I meant was, the right way to do an A/B of an analog source versus a digital source definitely does not involve dumping the analog source to wav before making the comparison.  I was speaking in more idealized terms.  Even in the less-than-ideal situation I'm in, I can still both measure and perceive a difference.



Is there a way to get a bit of your background?  Care to share a tad?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: djui5 on November 20, 2005, 09:08:16 PM
Curve likes to make an ASS of himself in public. It never ceases to amaze me...


He's the drunk guy rubbing on your girls tit's, then falling out into a crowd of people dancing at a party, to finish waking up in a pile of his own piss and vomit the next morning and saying to himself, "dude, I rocked last night!"
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: tmheli on November 20, 2005, 09:13:24 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:45

Is there a way to get a bit of your background?  Care to share a tad?


I'm going to answer, because you asked, but I want to stop posting after this.  I've said everything I have to offer, and have posted my opinion to the other thread (with the ftp link to the audio files).  So at this point, I have nothing to offer except distraction.

I live in Chicago.  I'm a musician first, in my heart, but for money, I am an acoustical consultant.  I do acoustical analysis for a living, primarily for FAA and NASA, though I've done work for Boeing, DoD, the Navy, the USMC, FDA, and NIH.

I graduated Columbia College in '96, and loved learning from Doug Jones and Malcolm Chisholm.  Learning critical listening the way Malcolm taught it is one of the most valuable things that's ever happened to me.

I've been recording music, on my own, for about 15 years.  I did time in a studio back when ADATs were all the rage.  I have always hated the ADAT.  Though I've recorded on media from cassette 4tk to 2" 24tk, most of what I record these days is tracked live, with a handful of decent mics mixed to stereo and recorded straight to mp3.  How's that for hi-fi!  When my band is ready to do a proper recording (hopefully in the next 6 months or so) I am almost 100% certain it will be tracked and mixed at Electrical.

Last time I had an audiogram done was in the mid 90's, so it's hardly where I am today... but I did quite well, with *negative* hearing loss at 3K.  I expect the past 10 years of rock have knocked that down to a positive loss.  Sad

Scott

PS - I'm stopping at 10...out of 10 times I identified which track I thought was the most bassy, 8 out of the 10 times I picked the same track, which was the same track the FFT identified as having the most bass.  I am dismissing the 2 erroneous guesses as "my earbuds weren't seated properly".  Smile

The question is, what's the source for that particular track.  I'm really curious to see if it was the tape machine.  I'm anxious for the results in a few days.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 20, 2005, 10:06:41 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 01:43

It is amazing to me that anyone could be so unprofessional and rude in public.


T'was not my intention, Randy.

Don't take my word for it. Go back and listen to that "audio" sample for yourself.

I'll bet you $1000 that if you thought it was ME who produced that, you'd have flamed me to death, quick.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 20, 2005, 10:11:38 PM
I owe Steve a public apology one one issue, I didn't know he was the person asking for a show of hands, no wonder he didn't raise his hand.

Sorry Steve.

I still don't see why you would let it go by, right there, at the event planned to prove one thing<-or->another, and not say something until 18 hours later, on the internet. I don't see the logic.

I know we all see things differently, I am just disappointed that the thing has turned into 100 other arguments, it was pretty damned specific, way before it got this far.

I am not the grand arbiter.

Shit!


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: canada on November 20, 2005, 10:41:26 PM
Curve Dominant wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 03:06

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 01:43

It is amazing to me that anyone could be so unprofessional and rude in public.


T'was not my intention, Randy.

Don't take my word for it. Go back and listen to that "audio" sample for yourself.

I'll bet you $1000 that if you thought it was ME who produced that, you'd have flamed me to death, quick.


Actually you've been nothing but rude to many people on this forum since I started reading it over a year ago.  For future reference, the internet is great, because you get to THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU POST before you post it.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 10:49:58 PM
tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 18:13

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:45

Is there a way to get a bit of your background?  Care to share a tad?


I'm going to answer, because you asked, but I want to stop posting after this.  I've said everything I have to offer, and have posted my opinion to the other thread (with the ftp link to the audio files).  So at this point, I have nothing to offer except distraction.

I live in Chicago.  I'm a musician first, in my heart, but for money, I am an acoustical consultant.  I do acoustical analysis for a living, primarily for FAA and NASA, though I've done work for Boeing, DoD, the Navy, the USMC, FDA, and NIH.

I graduated Columbia College in '96, and loved learning from Doug Jones and Malcolm Chisholm.  Learning critical listening the way Malcolm taught it is one of the most valuable things that's ever happened to me.

I've been recording music, on my own, for about 15 years.  I did time in a studio back when ADATs were all the rage.  I have always hated the ADAT.  Though I've recorded on media from cassette 4tk to 2" 24tk, most of what I record these days is tracked live, with a handful of decent mics mixed to stereo and recorded straight to mp3.  How's that for hi-fi!  When my band is ready to do a proper recording (hopefully in the next 6 months or so) I am almost 100% certain it will be tracked and mixed at Electrical.

Last time I had an audiogram done was in the mid 90's, so it's hardly where I am today... but I did quite well, with *negative* hearing loss at 3K.  I expect the past 10 years of rock have knocked that down to a positive loss.  Sad

Scott

PS - I'm stopping at 10...out of 10 times I identified which track I thought was the most bassy, 8 out of the 10 times I picked the same track, which was the same track the FFT identified as having the most bass.  I am dismissing the 2 erroneous guesses as "my earbuds weren't seated properly".  Smile

The question is, what's the source for that particular track.  I'm really curious to see if it was the tape machine.  I'm anxious for the results in a few days.



Thanks - you seemed to be into the testing mode pretty heavily.  Makes sense.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 20, 2005, 10:52:46 PM
The Resonater wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:36

OK guys.  I've listened to the files over my trusty Sony MDR-V6 headphones.  I've used these things for years and know them pretty well.  I posted a few of my choices on the other thread, but I wanted to say to everyone on this thread:

Let's try to simply pick which file is the "best" sounding.  I vote that we do that with these files.  Steve claimed in his posts that he heard the difference in the room quite clearly, and Mixerman seems to think that in his tests, the results were not subtle.  I gotta tell y'all, I'm not hearing lots of differences in these files.  Certainly nothing glaring.

So far, I like #8 the best.  

What do you guys think?

Mixerman, it only took me a few minutes to download all the files, so you should really try it and see what you think.  Steve, you too.  I'm being serious here.  At least to me, this shit is tough and a cool little ear test.  Does either of you hear an obvious glaring difference in these files?  

Come on, guys, let's take a stab at what sounds best and then have it revealed in a week or whatever.  We might all learn some stuff!





This precisely proves my point. This is not about which file you think sounds the best. This is about a faithful representation of the analog master. Whether it be flawed or not. THAt is why it is imperative to know what the 2" master is, and compare to that, in order to make any kind of determination.

Honestly, I don't understand why that's such a hard concept to grasp.

I don't have any way of playing back these files at my house as I don't have any of my gear here. I'll have to check them out in the stuido tomorrow. But I would like to have three files, and not have different clocks and sampling rates mucking up the waters. I spoke at great length about a oversaturation in my book, and 9 files is too many.

Please have the testers pare it down to three files, and I will then tell you which file has the earmarks of a PTHD transfer with the 192 converters and clock.

I dare you.

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 20, 2005, 10:53:16 PM
Curve Dominant wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:06

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 01:43

It is amazing to me that anyone could be so unprofessional and rude in public.


T'was not my intention, Randy.

Don't take my word for it. Go back and listen to that "audio" sample for yourself.

I'll bet you $1000 that if you thought it was ME who produced that, you'd have flamed me to death, quick.


What kind of statement is that?  You would "bet" someone you don't know about what they would do?

Dude!

Why bother to post this kind of thing?  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on November 20, 2005, 11:07:56 PM
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:52

This precisely proves my point. This is not about which file you think sounds the best. This is about a faithful representation of the analog master. Whether it be flawed or not. THAt is why it is imperative to know what the 2" master is, and compare to that, in order to make any kind of determination.

Honestly, I don't understand why that's such a hard concept to grasp.
no.

it is not about preferred sound.  you never even claimed in your test that it was about preferred sound.  it is about bass level only.  this test was about bass level.

you claimed it was a plain as day loss in the low end.  SURELY if this were true you could quite easily pick out which one it is.  surely the PT transfer has significantly less bass.  use your ears.  you are an AE.  and probably a damn good one.  the answer cannot be handed to you.  you claim your test made it evident.  you shouldn't need a comparison.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 12:20:43 AM
Let's all remember.

This test was planned for weeks.

This test was executed as planned.

Mr. Albini brought a set of 16 track heads and a killer 2" 16 track analog tape, all done on his own time.  

Fletcher made sure RADAR was represented, really kept the tech side on track.

Ron got the studio to chip in.  The staff worked their buts off.

Gannon was there representing Digi.

Some respected people in the test, when known what format they were listening to, without a doubt, believed they heard issues with the pro tools files in the low end.

However, once the files were played back - blind from an agreed upon format and converter set - those problems were identified around at the same ratio as a guess would be.

The blind tests didn't show the "problem" as some had anticipated based on the "live" test.

We have seen some accidental bias already when someone thought they knew the origins of the files.  It really was interesting how it followed "conventional wisdom".

The files are posted for people to listen to without bias.

Ain't gonna happen!  It should though.  The world will keep turning no matter what the outcome.





Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 21, 2005, 12:45:26 AM
Ryan Moore wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:55

with all the millions of pt users in the world you'd think if there was 6 db attenuation at 50-60 hz that more people might have noticed or is everyone still mixing on ns 10's




To be fair, we should all stop holding mixerman's feet to the fire regarding the exact amount of low frequency loss as well as the point in the spectrum where it becomes apparent.  It is clear that he threw out those numbers in a somewhat offhand manner, and was simply trying to illustrate the degree of loss he has experienced, even if he hasn't measured it with any degree of precision.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: thedoc on November 21, 2005, 01:49:59 AM
I thought the sample material was quite good...I'd buy the finished version.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 21, 2005, 02:34:15 AM
jimmyjazz wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 05:45

Ryan Moore wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:55

with all the millions of pt users in the world you'd think if there was 6 db attenuation at 50-60 hz that more people might have noticed or is everyone still mixing on ns 10's




To be fair, we should all stop holding mixerman's feet to the fire regarding the exact amount of low frequency loss as well as the point in the spectrum where it becomes apparent.  It is clear that he threw out those numbers in a somewhat offhand manner, and was simply trying to illustrate the degree of loss he has experienced, even if he hasn't measured it with any degree of precision.


And yet, those were the numbers used at the time.  Yes, I know, Mixerman has since recanted that statement, but it goes to show that using specific, objective numbers (measurements) implies that the user measured that amount, when in fact, he was describing a subjective experience.  And boy, once it's in print, it never seems to go away.  All he had to say was, "I'm hearing a problem in the bottom End."  Instead, here we are.

Along the same lines, someone once repeated that Mixerman had said the bass issue in HD was related to "impedance loading problems" in Bill Dooley's Studio Business Forum on EQ Magazine's page.  I jumped in and challenged it on the basis that the writer didn't know what impedance loading even was.  Mixerman himself showed up and recanted that statement.

I find Mixerman's writing to be very entertaining and engaging.  I've even bought four of his books and handed them out as gifts.  But in all honesty, I think that Mixerman's "celebrity" gets the better of him sometimes and he doesn't think through what he says.  Mixerman, if you're reading this, please don't take that as an insult, but rather just an observation.

Cheers,

Carter Wiliam Humphrey
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 02:37:21 AM
jimmyjazz wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:45

Ryan Moore wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:55

with all the millions of pt users in the world you'd think if there was 6 db attenuation at 50-60 hz that more people might have noticed or is everyone still mixing on ns 10's




To be fair, we should all stop holding mixerman's feet to the fire regarding the exact amount of low frequency loss as well as the point in the spectrum where it becomes apparent.  It is clear that he threw out those numbers in a somewhat offhand manner, and was simply trying to illustrate the degree of loss he has experienced, even if he hasn't measured it with any degree of precision.


To be even more fair, many of us said before the test that Mixerman's claim of the bottom octave or 6 DB down at 50 or 60 HZ was not to be taken literally.

Mixerman has used the word SEVERE even today as his explanation of what he heard.

If people don't stop hedging, this new test is a waste of time and is either an ego stroke for some or some kind of publicity stunt for others.

Everybody was fine with the test until some didn't like the outcome.

This has turned silly and close to embarrassing today.



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on November 21, 2005, 03:06:34 AM
I don't understand this. If Mixerman can repeat the experience and show you a typical setup were this bass lite thing occur, wouldn't it be interesting to take 2 hours of your life and check that with him ?

Aren't we all here to learn something ?

You are agreeing to spend days debating in front of your computer with people you don't even know, and you would refuse to meet them in person to solve this mystery, in your own town (I'm talking to the LA guys here).

2 hours at Cello's (or equivalent) with free coffee, 2 weeks here of endless and useless discussions ...

C'mon guys, see the opportunity

1) there is a bass lite problem that your maid can hear : you will learn something

2) there isn't : Mixerman says : "I'll be damn, my bad, sorry guys, can I buy you a drink..."

End of debate.

SO ?


...




Whatever, no one's listening ...




malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 03:10:48 AM
malice wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:06

I don't understand this. If Mixerman can repeat the experience and show you a typical setup were this bass lite thing occur, wouldn't it be interesting to take 2 hours of your life and check that with him ?

Aren't we all here to learn something ?

You are agreeing to spend days debating in front of your computer with people you don't even know, and you would refuse to meet them in person to solve this mystery, in your own town (I'm talking to the LA guys here).

2 hours at Cello's (or equivalent) with free coffee, 2 weeks here of endless and useless discussions ...

C'mon guys, see the opportunity

1) there is a bass lite problem that your maid can hear : you will learn something

2) there isn't : Mixerman says : "I'll be damn, my bad, sorry guys, can I buy you a drink..."

End of debate.

SO ?


...




Whatever, no one's listening ...




malice



I guess you missed that the test that was going to end all tests JUST TOOK PLACE 48 HOURS AGO.



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on November 21, 2005, 03:16:02 AM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 09:10


I guess you missed that the test that was going to end all tests JUST TOOK PLACE 48 HOURS AGO.






I'm not an idiot, but Steve Albini voiced some issues about it and some of the posters here seemed to dismiss it for several reasons.

If Mixerman himself conduct the test, don't you think it would be impossible for him to refute the results ?

2 hours of your life, and we're done with it ...

What's the skinny, aren't you living in LA ?

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 03:21:34 AM
malice wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:16

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 09:10


I guess you missed that the test that was going to end all tests JUST TOOK PLACE 48 HOURS AGO.






I'm not an idiot, but Steve Albini voiced some issues about it and some of the posters here seemed to dismiss it for several reasons.

If Mixerman himself conduct the test, don't you think it would be impossible for him to refute the results ?

2 hours of your life, and we're done with it ...

What's the skinny, aren't you living in LA ?

malice




In case you haven't noticed, Mixerman and I have already talked about the new test.  We may have been the first to speak of it last night.

And no I do not think it would be impossible for him to refute the results.  Look at today.

A couple of hours is no big deal.

But to be involved in something that will just be more of this bullshit, no thanks.

I really thought this test, either way, would put an end to this nonsense.

Boy, was I naive.

When you talk about other posters having problems with the test, right- the ones who don't like the outcome.

Of course we have more to hear from Mr Albini and Fletcher hasn't gone into any detail yet, so who knows, right?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on November 21, 2005, 03:34:01 AM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 09:21

In case you haven't noticed, Mixerman and I have already talked about the new test.  We may have been the first to speak of it last night.


Oh, I didn't know you accepted, my bad

Quote:


And no I do not think it would be impossible for him to refute the results.  Look at today.


C'mon, with him in the room with you ?

Quote:



A couple of hours is no big deal.


precisely

Quote:



But to be involved in something that will just be more of this bullshit, no thanks.

I really thought this test, either way, would put an end to this nonsense.

Boy, was I naive.


You're not naive, I wouldn't say that.

Quote:


Of course we have more to hear from Mr Albini and Fletcher hasn't gone into any detail yet, so who knows, right?


I'm like you, I surely would appreciate more details from Fletcher.

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 04:01:08 AM
Here's a question -

I just read a post by someone named Groucho or close, responded to another, came back and it was gone.

It was not a pro Mixerman post, but not off the hook or anything.

Is someone deleting posts?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 21, 2005, 05:37:41 AM
I'm going to down load the files maybe Monday or Tuesday and listen.......


I must say, having a bunch of guys standing around a control room is no good if you expected any of them to hear what the audio sounded like. How can anyone believe that you can hear what's really there if your not seated in front of the console.

Why was the test more than A B' ing the 2" Machine and the resulting transfer?  Why does anyone here think that printing to a different software product to hand it out or post it wont change the audio again?

Set this test up in a room where three folks sit at the mix position at a time. Have the machines out of the room. Play the 2" and the PT session and have them write their thoughts. Making CD's of this wont get you anywhere. This is supposed to be about what happens to audio transferred into PT from 2" 16. Not what happens when you do 50 unrelated things to the audio and make CD's of it..... Hear it come out of the console buss, through the speakers in the control room, siting where you mix. As far as I'm concerned, anything else will tell you nothing about this "Problem".

Why the hell were 20 or 14 people in the fucking control room? There's a clothing and hair problem right there.  .. And, They were Talking????


I have a friend here in town with a 2" 24 MCI machine and some 192's, I should maybe call him up. I would like to do a test now....


Ivan.............
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on November 21, 2005, 08:50:51 AM
Wow... I take a day off to travel and another one to hang with my family and watch some football and 12 pages of nonsense and an LA 'Pepsi Challenge' breaks out.

Yowsa.

At some point I'll get around to reading all 12 pages [there were probably 1/2 dozen in the first 3 pages that are on their way to 'magnetic heaven' as soon as I can some time].

During the transfers there were some people talking in the room though much of it was quelled with a simple "shut the fuck up" from yours truely.  On the 'drunken' end of it... yes there were some beers, but I saw nobody who engaged in too many... and me, I didn't have a one until the A/B/X test bullshit had been completed and I was so twisted around and confused that only a beer or two could possibly come close to putting the brain right again [kidding, I just wanted a beer as we were done working].

So... what did I hear?  I heard a palpable loss of lowend in the PT 48 transfer running from the 192 clock... it was a lot of things, subtle wasn't one of them.  I was also exceptionally tentative about raising my hand or my voice as I didn't want to skew any of the other opinions in the room.  In hind sight, this may have been an error of judgment on my part.  Steve and I talked about it amongst ourselves, but did not share the observation with the room.

The A/B/X testing at the conclusion of the printing of the files was in my estimation a complete and total crock of shit.

The parameters of the test were whether you could identify which of two files was played twice... not what you thought sounded better on each pass; but some kind of kids' game of matching pictures of fish.

I got less than half right... which I can take to either mean that I have seriously shitty ears [which I don't], OR that the ear fatigue that had settled in by the point where we were listening had me pretty well confused and disoriented.

After like the second test [there were 18 of the motherfuckers] I asked that the clips be shortened.  They were, but not by nearly enough for me to remember what "A" sounded like... so my process for the test was to try to remember sections of "B" to be compared to sections of "X" and they either did or didn't match.  Again, the clips were too long for me to retain the key sections where I was indeed able to notice the anomolies.

What the retention of what clip was played twice had to do with whole test is still a serious fucking mystery to me.  I was wondering what the next game was going to be... "Where's Waldo"?  "Pin the tail on the donkey"?

For me, the most telling part of this excercize was when the transfers were being printed.  I sat at the desk, in front of the mastersection and used all of my powers of concentration at that point.  Ron Steele sat next to me in the mix postion for the initial transfers, but we did not discuss what we did or didn't hear.

Now, I will grant that memory retention between clips stated to wane after like the 4th or 5th pass... HOWEVER... I had the initial playback go like this:  Analog; PT-48 off the 192 clock; Analog as that was the real reason I dropped a grand on airfare and hotels was to hear that comparison. It was analog/PT/analog again with the PT sandwiched between the two analog playbacks so full perspective could be achieved by moi.

I heard that comparison, and no, there was no 6db rolloff of a got damn thing, but there was a readily identifiable and palpable loss of "balls", low end, excitement in the PT 48 transfer.  Ain't no fuckin' bout a doubt it.  I heard it, and to quote Neal Diamond: "I'm a Believer".

When the transfer went down with the "Sync I/O" box attached, I was amazed at how much the lower midrange cleared up and how much the upper midrange got 'snappier'.  Now this was NOT an accurate representation of what was coming from the 2" but it was damn musically pleasing.  This was a serious [SERIOUS] surprise to me.  Out of all the PT transfers, I think this one was the one I found to be most musically pleasing.

There was no mistaking that the transfer from the 2" to the RADAR at 48k was THE closest representation to that which was coming from the 2".  The absolute most accurate representation hands fucking down.  

They cymbals were a bit grainy, but dealable.  The bottom was there in no uncertain terms.  With the RADAR at 96... the cymbals were smoother and clearer, but I didn't get the "thunder" I heard from the 48k transfer.

PT at 96 had similar issuses, though both the bottom and the top were smoother and the Sync I/O box made less of a pronounced difference to the smoothness of the midrange content.  The interesting thing was that Dave Clementson [the Digi hardware designer in attendance] mentioned to me that the Sync I/O box has worse jitter specs than the 192 boxes... but to me it sounded way more musical.  Again... an interesting phenomenon that probably deserves more attention than just playing around with 45 things one night in a foreign control room.

In other clock observations... the Big Ben helped in some ways, didn't help in other ways... but by the time we got up to the transfers using the Big Ben clock my brain was pretty crisp and I had started to entirely lose perspective.  It seemed that the bottom was clearer with the Big Ben ["punchier"? ... I still hate that fucking description].  

When the initial passes were accomplished I felt a far better perspective... however, the RADAR transfers did happen subsequent to ALL of the PT transfers... yet to me, there was no mistaking the overall difference in terms of clarity and definition [which I'll repeat I thought were a measure better at 48 than 96].  Steve mentioned that he though the RADAR would actually be useable which kinda shocked me a bit [Steve almost acknowleging that a digital system didn't entirely suck]

So... what did I take from this in the overall?

Yes, PT loses bottom but isn't the brittle piece of shit I thought I'd hear from it... that I have to fuck around with 48 and 96 on my RADAR back at the house to determine which I'll be using for what applications... and tell my friend who uses PT on a regular basis to get one of those Sync I/O things.

Other than that... I was a bit bummed that "The Pump Room" [hotel bar] closed before 1a... but very happy that I somehow ended up in a suite in which you could have played softball.

Like I said, at some point I'll get to reading through all this nonsense [I have a feeling that it might be closer to 8 or 9 pages when I'm done with that]... but for the moment, I just don't have the time.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Eric Rudd on November 21, 2005, 09:50:29 AM
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 02:33

Does the same thing happen if you get small?

-R



If that were the case, Randy Newman's listeners would require a different freq. curve.

E
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 21, 2005, 10:52:55 AM
I think it should be noted that Mixerman's stated criteria is fidelity to the original source; Fletcher's is based on if he likes the way the transfer sounds.  Both are valid, but one is an apple, one is an orange.  

Based on Mixerman's fidelity to the original as criteria, it is not unreasonable for him to want to know the source, as he has been asked to pick the PT file(s) out from the rest because now he--not Pro Tools--is on trial.  But it does call the magnitude of his sonic accusation about Pro Tools into serious question.  

And I wonder if his maid could tell the difference between 16 bit 44.1 and a well-encoded mp3; I also wonder if his maid (or much of the rest of the public) would care.  But I digress...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 21, 2005, 11:01:50 AM
Fletcher, thanks for the perspective.

More than anything, I think this exercise shows just how difficult it is to properly set up and execute a scientific test.  It is no slam on the participants to admit that things went awry.  I work 40-50 hours a week with a whole bunch of brilliant engineers -- not audio, but those of those of mechancial/electrical/computer orientations -- and I routinely see tests set up that don't produce results of any clarity.  When that happens, we try to learn our lessons, reformulate and refine the test processes, and go again.  IT'S NOT EASY.

The single biggest problem I see with the test is that the participants were not encouraged to anonymously commit their thoughts to paper immediately after hearing the difference (or not) between playback off the 2" and playback through the PT converters.  By polling the audience, Steve Albini unwittingly polluted the waters.  I say this with no malice towards Steve, either.  It's understandable why he did what he did.  He just probably didn't think through all the different combinations and permutations of why someone might raise their hand (or not) when posed that all-important question:  who heard a low frequency deviation between the PT rig and the 2" tape deck?

If I had been in that room, the urge to align with the "big boys" would have been substantial.  If Fletcher isn't raising his hand, I'm thinking twice about raising mine.  Same for Steve, et al.  People are emotional creatures!  For proof we need look no further than Steve's mind-boggling assertion that he himself is afflicted with severe "performance anxiety" when he plays tracks he engineered back in public.  Come the fuck on!  If Steve worries about HIS work, then I should just pack it in!  (Or maybe I shouldn't worry that I worry.  I don't know.)

I agree that I should have chimed in about the test setup as it was being formulated.  I did have questions, and I'm sure others did, too.  There are many reasons why I didn't pipe up, but none of them are really good, so for that I apologize.  I'm a moderately paranoid narcissist, as most engineers are, and I probably didn't want to "look bad".  (I think I'm intentionally blocking things out.)

I understand Randy Nicklaus' frustration.  However, I don't think another attempt at clarifying this issue is unwarranted.  I hope it happens.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: sui-city on November 21, 2005, 11:06:27 AM
maarvold wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 17:52

I think it should be noted that Mixerman's stated criteria is fidelity to the original source; Fletcher's is based on if he likes the way the transfer sounds.  Both are valid, but one is an apple, one is an orange.  

Based on Mixerman's fidelity to the original as criteria, it is not unreasonable for him to want to know the source since now he--not Pro Tools--is on trial.  But it does call the magnitude of his sonic accusation about Pro Tools into serious question.  


Sorry, but that is not how i read Fletcher's post at all.

Fletcher first clearly states that he perceived a difference in the bottom end between analog and PT.

Only then does he start discussing the differing musicality of the different configurations, up until his ears retire for the evening.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fibes on November 21, 2005, 11:06:29 AM
I find it hard to swallow that something "the maid should be able to hear" was completely lost of most of the folks in the room.

And now it's not 6db down at 60.



Thanks to all who went through the effort and spent the time to try to get to the bottom of this. NPI....
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: BT on November 21, 2005, 11:12:54 AM
Well for what it’s worth…..

I was at the test sitting with the guy who made the Digi 192.I can say this he was one of the nicest guys I have come across in a long time. We chatted about clocks converters and the like while Steve and the rest got things going.

Now when the transfers began into Protools with the 192 on its own internal clock at 48k, upon playback there it was no impact, harsh highs and yes a loss of bottom end!!At this point I stood up and looked at a tech friend of mine and he agreed, my new friend from Digidesign also stood with a confused look on his face.

Now what gets me is that next there were numerous transfers at 48k,96k etc and also to the Radar at 48k,96k and after these transfers took place many were commenting on how good the Radar tracks sounded but in the end it was very difficult to pick these tracks.

This leaves a couple of things to consider one being the Lavry converters, of which I will admit I am no fan of personally, that were used in the final two track mix. Did these in some way level the playing field to the point of not being able to tell a dam thing? What about Nuendo while were at it, did this massage our tracks to digital twins?

The other thing that struck me as nuts was the amount of tracks we had to listen to upon the blind test, how good were your ears after 3+hours of these mains pumping in the room and then mix up a bunch of sample rates in a A+B+X that were layed off to another computer using the above, come on I think everybody that was there will agree it was sensory overload grande.

As far as raising my hand, well from where I was sitting lets just say it was best kept down for far too many reasons to get into.

I think if it were just one simple pass at 48k on the Digi clock it would have been easy to pick it out.

In the test files posted there is not an obvious loss of low end but you do not have the original tape to listen to either.

Without getting into a digital-analog debate I think most that were there were fine with using Pro Tools from a digital standpoint by the end of the evening and there were some interesting clock issues sorted out also.

My 2


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on November 21, 2005, 11:42:28 AM
BT wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 17:12

Well for what it?s worth?..

I was at the test sitting with the guy who made the Digi 192.I can say this he was one of the nicest guys I have come across in a long time. We chatted about clocks converters and the like while Steve and the rest got things going.

Now when the transfers began into Protools with the 192 on its own internal clock at 48k, upon playback there it was no impact, harsh highs and yes a loss of bottom end!!At this point I stood up and looked at a tech friend of mine and he agreed, my new friend from Digidesign also stood with a confused look on his face.


This is the third person that heard the bass drop, I'm beginning to wonder if all this was not a dream ...

Quote:



This leaves a couple of things to consider one being the Lavry converters, of which I will admit I am no fan of personally, that were used in the final two track mix. Did these in some way level the playing field to the point of not being able to tell a dam thing? What about Nuendo while were at it, did this massage our tracks to digital twins?


Doubt it would be the Lavrys, But something might be wrong in the printed 2 tracks.

three persons heard it, it is not on the 2 tracks mix ????


what the fuck ?????


Quote:


I think if it were just one simple pass at 48k on the Digi clock it would have been easy to pick it out.

In the test files posted there is not an obvious loss of low end but you do not have the original tape to listen to either.

Without getting into a digital-analog debate I think most that were there were fine with using Pro Tools from a digital standpoint by the end of the evening and there were some interesting clock issues sorted out also.





Thanx for sharing this, I'm more and more wondering about the validity of the procedure and I wouldn't take this test as final as some of us would love to do.

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 21, 2005, 11:47:49 AM
Actually, for all the carping, it seems like to me good data was generated at this test.  It's not reasonable to assume that it would be all that meaningful at the time.  Too many people, ear burnout, etc., like Fletcher said.  But if the transfers were done correctly, as it seems they were, then now is the time to take the time and check it out thoroughly.  No way could it have been done on the day.

I think Mixerman's request is reasonable.  Make three files available --the tape mix, and Radar and PT at 44.1 or 48.  Personally, I don't see the need to identify any of them, but perhaps it does make sense to identify the tape pass.  This duplicates MM's original test most closely, which was the impetus for all this.

I plan on listening to all of them with the goal of identifying each one, and I'll go on record, but I think it will be confusing.

You know, you can present this data in several different ways, lining up sensible blind comparisons like you tried to do on the day, and people can just download what interests them.  

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: groucho on November 21, 2005, 12:06:54 PM
Yep, someone deleted my post. Fletcher's response to my query via PM was so vague I'm starting to wonder if perhaps there's a hidden policy at work here that folks like me - who aren't in the "inner circle" - are maybe unaware of.

Chris

EDIT: Fletcher has since contacted me again, and has promised to look into it. I won't point any fingers until I have some confirmation, but it certainly seems obvious what happened...

Chris

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 04:01

Here's a question -

I just read a post by someone named Groucho or close, responded to another, came back and it was gone.

It was not a pro Mixerman post, but not off the hook or anything.

Is someone deleting posts?



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 12:07:07 PM
At the end of the day there is only one real issue.

Did the files make it through the Lavry converters onto Nuendo intact?

Did the Lavry converters drop off so much low end that the test results can only be argued by those in the room?

Pretty simple really because with the files we are also left with the example of the person who posted his thoughts on files he THOUGHT were analog, PT and RADAR.

When you "know" what you are listening to bias can creep in, like it or not and it has been shown this weekend.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 21, 2005, 12:12:26 PM
First, I haven't been able to find which of the 2 analog rooms this event was held in. I'm wondering what console, what monitor path, what connection to the Lavry converters, etc.

As I said before, I've both heard this problem and not heard the problem depending on the studio. The most obvious was a live session. I've been working almost entirely in digital since the 1990s however this live session was the first live board feed I'd been present for in ten years. I was also in the back of the room and have no idea what things sounded like sitting at the console. I can't emphasise enough how much I didn't want to hear that there was a problem.

Unfortunately I haven't ever been in the position to troubleshoot this and considered it totally inappropriate to point the problem out in front of folks who are pouring their hearts into their performances. It really doesn't matter that much. On the other hand, hearing awesome "balls" on playback has always been one of the joys of recording in a "big" room and increasing the awe component for the participants really builds confidence in letting a recording take on a life of its own as an event. It also raises the bar challenging everybody to perform better. To me, challenging people to perform better is the whole point of recording in a studio rather than a bedroom.

The differences between these files are lots more subtle than what my client brought me last week. On the other hand, what had seemed like huge differences when I attended Lynn Fuston's converter shootout a couple years ago were also diminished in the final files. One thing I'm sure of is that once this "magic" is lost, it doesn't come back and lots of different things in signal and monitor paths can lose it. At that point things do all sound the same.

I'm pretty sure that everybody has heard exactly what they say they've heard. Hopefully we can move beyond proving the quality of our gear or hearing ability to learn why some of us have experienced the differences and lack of differences we have.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 21, 2005, 12:14:40 PM
Quote:

Quote:

When the transfer went down with the "Sync I/O" box attached, I was amazed at how much the lower midrange cleared up and how much the upper midrange got 'snappier'. Now this was NOT an accurate representation of what was coming from the 2" but it was damn musically pleasing. This was a serious [SERIOUS] surprise to me. Out of all the PT transfers, I think this one was the one I found to be most musically pleasing.


Sorry, but that is not how i read Fletcher's post at all.

Fletcher first clearly states that he perceived a difference in the bottom end between analog and PT.

Only then does he start discussing the differing musicality of the different configurations, up until his ears retire for the evening.


Clearly, Fletcher had more issues, or maybe questions is a better word, with Pro Tools than just the bottom end.  If he knew a lot about the 192 and how it sounded he would have never written the quote--it would have been old news and irrelevant to him.  So I guess, at the heart of my 'grim fascination' with these endless Pro Tool vs Anything Else debates is: why do so many people focus on Digi?  Why not, for example, focus on mp3s (can you say 10 to 1 lossy compression)?  Or recording, monitoring and mixing in non-acoustically correct environments (can you say spare bedroom)?  

Since the beginning of this debate, the 192 converter has essentially been the thing on trial.  I got the distinct impression that Fletcher's opinion of the 192's performance--at least when used in some circumstances--took a definite turn toward the positive.  

IMHO, it is very difficult to get the best out of digital.  There is a WHOLE LOT to know and it is difficult to know what is technically correct and how it relates to what we like.  Much of the information is new and rapidly changing.  

Because I suspected--and Fletcher validated--that this would end up to be about more than perceived frequency response below 60 Hz, this is why I suggested that analog-to-analog should have been tested: to give us a sense of whether we have made progress in terms of "fidelity to the original".  If the original does not have fidelity to its source, what the Hell are we preserving?  

This is also why I added the MDW 12 dB/octave low pass at 90 Hz on my 2 buss and restated what I perceived: because this was the best way I could come up with to narrow the field of focus to the stated issue at hand: is there significantly less bottom end at 60 Hz and below on some of the transfers.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 21, 2005, 01:25:26 PM
There could have been an homogenization of the sound, since all of the files were recorded through the Lavery.  Could be good or bad.  One thing is for sure; any piece of gear that you run sound through changes it in some way.

As I read the comments of those who attended the test,  what stands out is that they all had very strong opinions on which sounded best, when they KNEW what source they were listening to.  Once the music was recorded and played in the double blind test, it became much harder to pick which was which.  I'm sure it was partly a case of overstimulation.

My other question is:  How can any one of us do a fair test at home???  If you play the files back through a 192, then they all suffer the low end cut.  Right?  So they should pretty similar.  If you play from a stand alone CD player, they all go down to the level of those converters.  Right?  I listened through a MOTU 2408, so they all take on that soinc signature.  The only real test might be listening to the 2" playback and comparing that to the Digital copy on the spot.  That test was skewed, because the listeners knew what they were listening to when the made their decision about which sound they liked the best.  So there is no real definitive test.  The only thing I can really get from the test is that there may be more low end (or balls) on the analog tape.  One fact remains.  You're going to have a hard time making it home with those balls on your CD, because in the end, it comes down to the converters on the end users system.

Clearly the differences in the mixed files are not so blatent that a maid could tell which is the 2".

Steve

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 01:40:02 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 10:25

There could have been an homogenization of the sound, since all of the files were recorded through the Lavery.  Could be good or bad.  One thing is for sure; any piece of gear that you run sound through changes it in some way.

As I read the comments of those who attended the test,  what stands out is that they all had very strong opinions on which sounded best, when they KNEW what source they were listening to.  Once the music was recorded and played in the double blind test, it became much harder to pick which was which.  I'm sure it was partly a case of overstimulation.

My other question is:  How can any one of us do a fair test at home???  If you play the files back through a 192, then they all suffer the low end cut.  Right?  So they should pretty similar.  If you play from a stand alone CD player, they all go down to the level of those converters.  Right?  I listened through a MOTU 2408, so they all take on that soinc signature.  The only real test might be listening to the 2" playback and comparing that to the Digital copy on the spot.  That test was skewed, because the listeners knew what they were listening to when the made their decision about which sound they liked the best.  So there is no real definitive test.  The only thing I can really get from the test is that there may be more low end (or balls) on the analog tape.  One fact remains.  You're going to have a hard time making it home with those balls on your CD, because in the end, it comes down to the converters on the end users system.

Clearly the differences in the mixed files are not so blatent that a maid could tell which is the 2".

Steve




I agree with what you say adding that if some are doing SRC, it goes to the double creepy area of weirdness.

There are some respected mastering engineers in these here parts. They don't care about PT VS 2" VS RADAR.

Brad Blackwood can take this files and give an opinion through his system.

Dave Collins, Bob O., Jay F, Ronny, and all of the other well geared, monitored people.  Excuse me for not having names off the top of my head.

That should take the files to a level playing field to start with.

Take the 24/96 files, load them into your systems.  Which files are obvious?

How hard is that? - providing they have the time and interest.

A lot of time, money and hard work went into a planned test - Don't throw it out the window for the wrong reasons.

50 people in the control room won't change the patched mixes from each format to 24/96.

Once the analog mix was done, it's all about output of what machine.  No other tweaks to the mix with tired or drunk or loud people happened or mattered.  The rough mix, when done, was the reference.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: xonlocust on November 21, 2005, 01:47:31 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 12:25

There could have been an homogenization of the sound, since all of the files were recorded through the Lavery.  Could be good or bad.  One thing is for sure; any piece of gear that you run sound through changes it in some way.

As I read the comments of those who attended the test,  what stands out is that they all had very strong opinions on which sounded best, when they KNEW what source they were listening to.  Once the music was recorded and played in the double blind test, it became much harder to pick which was which.  I'm sure it was partly a case of overstimulation.

My other question is:  How can any one of us do a fair test at home???  If you play the files back through a 192, then they all suffer the low end cut.  Right?  So they should pretty similar.  If you play from a stand alone CD player, they all go down to the level of those converters.  Right?  I listened through a MOTU 2408, so they all take on that soinc signature.  The only real test might be listening to the 2" playback and comparing that to the Digital copy on the spot.  That test was skewed, because the listeners knew what they were listening to when the made their decision about which sound they liked the best.  So there is no real definitive test.  The only thing I can really get from the test is that there may be more low end (or balls) on the analog tape.  One fact remains.  You're going to have a hard time making it home with those balls on your CD, because in the end, it comes down to the converters on the end users system.

Clearly the differences in the mixed files are not so blatent that a maid could tell which is the 2".

Steve




that's a much more clear and succint way of saying what i was trying to say. as for the blind tests, remember we weren't trying to pick out what was radar, what was tape - etc.  it was trying to compare the 2 samples.  i can honestly say some of the snippets stood out as "unique" and "better" from the others, but i have no idea what the final format of those were - as it was blind.  maybe i was picking the 192 PT as my "unique" and "betters" - i really have no way of knowing.   i do definitely know that they were not all the same.  i also felt major overstimulation by the end of the test.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 21, 2005, 01:51:52 PM
Okay, I've listened.  Wow, I really didn't think they'd be so similar.  Differences are popping out but it's hard to separate out illusion from reality.  I really think there's too much to digest with all nine tracks.  The problem is, especially considering the repetitive or incessant nature of the track (no critique, just observation), that when listening it all loses meaning very quickly.  It's like when you say a word over and over and it starts to sound like a foreign language.

So far I've identified one or two tracks that I think reliably have more low end, and will keep listening, and will post what will probably turn out to be wild  guesses.

But I want to ask again if the curators of the files would be willing to post them in smaller groups, separating sample rate considerations from platform considerations.  It would in no way skew or dilute what's been presented so far.  I think it's part of the nature of human perception that when too much information is presented everything starts to seem arbitrary.

And thanks to all for your efforts.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 21, 2005, 01:54:16 PM
If the claim is that the RADAR and Pro Tools both can't capture the analog recording reliably, then to do this test properly you would need a large format analog console and the ability to lock via video reference a 2", Pro Tools and RADAR and have them all play in sync.

After transfer, they should all should be returned to the console in synch - and have the exact same mix set up for each system.. calibrated within .1 decibel. Each set of returns should be put on a group mute which is placed at the center position. An unbiased test controller would remain in the control room and only one listener would be allowed into the control room at a time. The mix console would be covered so that the listener would only see the group switches and not the console meters or the fader mutes. Between tests the group masters would be switched around so listeners couldn't compare notes in the lounge (there would be 8 group masters available A through H for selection by the test controller). The tape heads would also be cleaned before each new listener entered the control room. All group masters should be muted before the song end and kept muted when starting playback until the synchronizer says the analog has achieved lock. The test controller would first ask the listener to identify each system. He would then tell them which was the analog and ask them which one was the RADAR and which was the Pro Tools. Test done.

OTOH, if the contention still exists - that the RADAR can reliably record an analog transfer while the Pro Tools HD cannot... that test has just been concluded. If that's the claim then the files from Chicago should point that out easily - the analog and RADAR sound files should have bottom end and the Pro Tools sound files should not. Identifying the Pro Tools sound file should be simple -- it would be the one with no bottom end, while the other two had full bandwidth. There's no reason to know which was the analog transfer sound file for this test.

If the claim is that the Lavry/Nuendo couldn't capture the low end issue.. then send us the audio files from the RADAR and Pro Tools to compare them.  One should be able to take each set of files and create the same mix in the box and bounce it down internally (without any effects) and the resultant (stereo mix) files should show the low end difference.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: groucho on November 21, 2005, 01:56:00 PM
Weird: am I hallucinating or did a post by Brad Blackwood just vanish as well?

Chris
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on November 21, 2005, 02:03:13 PM
What I heard, and what was heard by others who were in the room at the time of the "testing" was actually heard... even when we knew the source.  There was a time when Ron Steele and I looked at each other with the "holy shit" look as the PT with the Sync I/O clearly stood heads and tails above the PT with the 192 clock... I mean like not even close.

The "A/B/X" test bullshit was not a test of "which sounded better", it was a test of "which one of these things is not like the other".  My ears were A) crisp; B) not directly in the monitor field.  The people who got the majority of the answers "right" were more in the monitor field than those who got fewer right.

The test I noticed that was like night and day in the "A/B/X" thing was "test 9".  This was one where you'd have to be deafer than a fence post to not have immediately identified the two signals being radically different.  When I asked Azulas what they were when the whole thing had come to an end... guess what he said... "PT-48 and RADAR 48".  Night and fucking day.

Does that mean anything?  Not really because I wasn't listening for "better" or "worse", I was listening for "different".  I was listening for how the cymbals were being treated in terms of level and quality, I was listening for the impact of the kick... there were some where I was listening for a difference in terms of the depth and dimension of the ambience/echo on the guitar solo... in other words, I wasn't listening for overall clarity and presence, I was trying to pass the birthday party test of "one of these things is not like the other".

It's not that you couldn't hear a difference between these clips, it's that there were 18 trials each containing 3 snippets [all of which were too long from my perspective... 4 bar samples would have been far more telling than the 32+ bar samples that were played but that's another debate]... so from 54 times of listening to the same damn thing go by I got fatigued.  I wasn't listening to the relationship of a bass to drum kit as it related to a vocal as that related to the harmonic and rythmic structure of the other midrange instruments [like if I were mixing], I was listening for changes in the overall tonal character of a playback [which to me is way harder].

I agree with Mr. Krizman... 3 files should be posted... the 2"; the PT 48 [192 clock], and the RADAR 48.  If someone can't tell the difference between those files then it would be the fault of the Lavry's... because sitting in the room it was as clear as the difference between rain and snow.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 21, 2005, 02:03:48 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 13:40

[
There are some respected mastering engineers in these here parts. They don't care about PT VS 2" VS RADAR.

Brad Blackwood can take this files and give an opinion through his system.

Dave Collins, Bob O., Jay F, Ronny, and all of the other well geared, monitored people.  Excuse me for not having names off the top of my head.

That should take the files to a level playing field to start with.

Take the 24/96 files, load them into your systems.  Which files are obvious?

How hard is that? - providing they have the time and interest.

A lot of time, money and hard work went into a planned test - Don't throw it out the window for the wrong reasons.



Right, Randy, let's spend some time and respect the efforts thus far.  The original hang at the test was probably great fun, but in reality it was just a way to generate data, none of which was necessarily expected to be meaningful at the time.  There's no way it could be,  and there's already enough anecdotal stuff about this circulating.

I too would love to get the perspective of some of the mastering people--how about it guys?  Does Bob O detect any problems in these files that he's heard before?

And now that everyone has vented let's keep a civil tone.  Forget playing "gotcha".  These files all have enough integrity to them that a wrong guess doesn't mean you're deaf (IMO).

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: telefunky on November 21, 2005, 02:12:21 PM
I have two questions that I may have missed the answers to:  When did digidesign ever claim that their system would reproduce an analog transfer with 100% accuracy?  Don’t transfers of all types change the sonic characteristics of a program in some way?  Thanks.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 02:16:22 PM
I would like to re emphasize one important point.

Even though people were there listening to the transfers, once the analog mix was done, it was all about output of three machines, 2', RADAR and PT. No other tweaks to the mix with tired or drunk or loud people happened or mattered. The rough mix, when done, was the reference.

Is this correct?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 21, 2005, 02:38:46 PM
Quote:

If you play the files back through a 192, then they all suffer the low end cut. Right?


Yes: logically, it would still be a level playing field.  

Quote:

 So they should pretty similar.


Not logical, although if someone with better technical expertise than I wants to explain why I am wrong, I am ready to learn.  I will give you that the differences might be masked IF 60 Hz and below is already down substantially.  FWIW, the output of my PTHD rig feeds (via Apogee WydEye digital cable) the input of my TacT RCS 2.0 digital room correction device.  

http://stereophile.com/solidpreamps/437/

For all intents and purposes, I only listen to the output of my 192s on tracking and overdub dates.  The rest of the time (mixing and mastering) I listen to the room-corrected output of the TacT D-to-A with my own custom curve, which is actually 2 straight lines and not a curve.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: smazur on November 21, 2005, 02:45:56 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 12:12

I'm pretty sure that everybody has heard exactly what they say they've heard. Hopefully we can move beyond proving the quality of our gear or hearing ability to learn why some of us have experienced the differences and lack of differences we have.


Don't mean to take this thread off topic or unveil the pink elephant's baby brother, but in interest of pursuing Bob Olhsson's well-considered suggestion, I will submit a potentially related observation.

The soundcard in my home computer (what I've been using to listen to the test clips) is an E-MU 1212M. Part of the reason I purchased this card (aside from the cost) was that it reportedly has the same ADC chip as the 192s. I don't consider these converters to be the gold standard by any means, but I liked knowing there would be some consistency between my home listening environment and what I invariably have to use when working digitally in the studio.

Recently I began transferring some of my vinyl to hi-rez digital files. I did some listening tests to decide upon a resolution. Expecting to mainly hear differences in the top end (where 44.1/48k failed), I was surprised to find that even at 96k I heard noticeable differences in the low end. I would characterize it much like Mixerman did, as if an HPF had been applied, although I wouldn't care to attribute a slope or frequency to this rolloff. Even on much acoustic music, I felt like there was some energy missing "down there."

This sonic imprint kind of surprised and disappointed me, but I wouldn't consider it a dealbreaker. Luckily for me, my home recordings are just that, and they have nothing to do with the work I'm paid to do. Fortunately, I don't consider the transfers I've been doing as "archives." That said, if you take your work and your clients' work seriously, and you're shooting for sonic "perfection", it's disheartening to hear the kind of change that MM and others have noticed, and I understand why they would object to it. As professionals, we demand excellence from the equipment we use, and for now, I guess the only solution to this perceived "problem" is to simply use another converter or medium. Also, I think it's a good practice to conduct your sessions monitoring whatever your final destination is; when I've done sessions on 2" that will be transferred to (and ultimately mixed from) Pro Tools, I normally hardwire the 2" output right to PT (which remains on input), which both saves time in the transfer and alleviates the type of letdown MM experienced. Also, if I have to mix back into Pro Tools, I like to monitor through the 2-track A/D, to compensate for its qualities from the start.

Anyway, I hope someone from Digi or someone who knows about the internal circuitry of the 192s and/or the chipset in my E-MU card can shed some technical light on all of this. Again, I made this post because I've perceived a similar loss with a different component that (reportedly) uses the same chipset as the 192s, which might lend a clue as to where the "problem" lies. Hopefully someone can help support or refute this claim.

-Steve Mazur
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: digiengineer on November 21, 2005, 02:46:38 PM
Fletcher wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 05:50

When the transfer went down with the "Sync I/O" box attached, I was amazed at how much the lower midrange cleared up and how much the upper midrange got 'snappier'.  Now this was NOT an accurate representation of what was coming from the 2" but it was damn musically pleasing.  This was a serious [SERIOUS] surprise to me.  Out of all the PT transfers, I think this one was the one I found to be most musically pleasing.


Fletcher, I believe you've found the "missing link" as to why some us have heard the loss of low end and others of us haven't. I have never transfered audio to a PTHD system without the SYNC attached. After all, when transferring from analog, one is typically using timecode and a central clock reference (i.e. video ref). For most of us who own PTHD and work professionally, the SYNC is a standard part of the system just like the 192, so we would have no reason to operate without it (except to use a third-party clock), nor a reason to operate using the internal clock on the 192.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 21, 2005, 02:50:52 PM
Steve,

In converters the chipset is only a fraction of the sound -- the analog stage is just as critical.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 02:56:47 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 09:12



The differences between these files are lots more subtle than what my client brought me last week.


Have you decided which ones have the problem?

If not obvious, do you then agree it's the Lavry?  Nuendo?


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: azuolas on November 21, 2005, 03:13:51 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 11:12

First, I haven't been able to find which of the 2 analog rooms this event was held in. I'm wondering what console, what monitor path, what connection to the Lavry converters, etc.



Studio 5. SSL6000
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 21, 2005, 03:15:29 PM
Today I have spoke with Fletcher, Gannon and Steve A.

Let's get this straight, none of them believes this test was a waste of time or irrelevant like some are suggesting. Everyone in attendance got some something out of this test beyond verifying or negating the under lying bass lite pink elephant claim.

None of  us are in disagreement with each-others  opinions or thoughts on weather or not the pink elephant was in the room, and it doesn't really matter what any of us think at this point.

I want to know what all of you think.

The big question is do these test files represent a reasonably close representation of what we heard during the live 2" playback, and the live 48k protools playback.

I think yes, plus it is all we have now which I feel is actually invaluable
to the question in front of us.

After discussing this with both Fletcher and Gannon, I will be calling Azoulas to ask him to post, in a poll thread, the 2", PT48 and Radar48. They will not be identified and will remain blind for a period of time.

The poll will ask if one of these is Bass Lite, or lacking balls in the low-end. Pick one or none.

Obviously the poll will give us a real meter to look at, so this public blind test should really tell us if this should matter in our lives anymore.

One thing I would like to see though, is mixerman make his pick known publicly in that thread, it's the least he could do.

I hope to get this going soon, but I still need to get in touch with Azoulas to see if he has the time today.

P.S.

I originally stated that the premise of the test was to see if the pink elephant showed up in the CR, and not to see if PT48 int. clk. could perfectly replicate a 2".

What I did not hear was a SEVER BASS LOSS. I did hear differences in the OVERALL sonics of the transfer which to me was certainly not  life or death. Any minor critical thoughts I had on that transfer were totally blown out by the PT48k digi sync i/o pass that Fletcher mentioned. And now as I sit here and listen to all the files in my space, it's getting even harder to find the pink elephant or the bear {if there ever was} , hiding behind the tree. I hear stuff but no SEVER BASS LOSS that would make my wife or maid scream.

After the test was over, one very well respected and acclaimed AE said, "well i guess we can get back to making music now".  

We now know, that we don't know, when challenged to go at it blind.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 21, 2005, 03:51:11 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 13:56

...Have you decided which ones have the problem?

If not obvious, do you then agree it's the Lavry?  Nuendo?

Possibly even the SSL since I didn't hear anything very obvious in the past with an SSL 9k. A Neve with all the transformers is a whole different kettle of fish interfacing anything.

My first impression is that I like 1 the best and 6 the least. The bass drum seems more driving and in rhythm on 1. Having nine files is pretty confusing. It makes sense to record the variations for later study but it doesn't make sense to just throw up nine different versions.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 04:00:37 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 12:51

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 13:56

...Have you decided which ones have the problem?

If not obvious, do you then agree it's the Lavry?  Nuendo?

Possibly even the SSL since I didn't hear anything very obvious in the past with an SSL 9k. A Neve with all the transformers is a whole different kettle of fish interfacing anything.

My first impression is that I like 1 the best and 6 the least. The bass drum seems more driving and in rhythm on 1. Having nine files is pretty confusing. It makes sense to record the variations for later study but it doesn't make sense to just throw up nine different versions.


I think we know that via the 24/96 files there is no glaring bass loss although most can hear differences, no doubt.

My question remains is how/why the difference did not make it from live to memorex.

This seems to be as big or bigger issue of if the tranfer is right or not.

If everyone is leaving the studios with refs that are changing the bottom end as much as this Lavry/Nuendo thing may have, Huston we have a much bigger problem.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 21, 2005, 04:03:33 PM
smazur wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 14:45

Recently I began transferring some of my vinyl to hi-rez digital files. I did some listening tests to decide upon a resolution. Expecting to mainly hear differences in the top end (where 44.1/48k failed), I was surprised to find that even at 96k I heard noticeable differences in the low end. I would characterize it much like Mixerman did, as if an HPF had been applied, although I wouldn't care to attribute a slope or frequency to this rolloff. Even on much acoustic music, I felt like there was some energy missing "down there."



Steve, could it be a phono preamp question?  Not using one or using the wrong one or a different one could drastically affect the bottom end. (sorry if that's obvious to you)

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 21, 2005, 04:08:04 PM
(I think I originally put this in the wrong thread, so I'm repeating it here--Fletcher, feel free to delete one of them)


Alright, I've listened 3 times, in stereo and mono, on headphnes, Adams S3-As and JBL LSR 28's.

Sheesh.

I can't really go down the line and say which is which. I've never used Radar or an I/O synch, so I don't know what to listen for.

-I think #1 is the analog mix. It feels wider and more natural, with plenty of lows.

-#8, to my ears, has less bass than #1 and an overall "tickier" kick. Given the premise of the test I'd say this is PT. Less bass, I think, but in other ways more defined.

-#7 also exhibited some of that, or I'm dreaming (50/50 chance). There's some flat quality about 7 I don't like.

-#9 seems to have more low end than #8, but shaped differently from #1. Less continuous or integrated somehow. Radar?

Of all of them, #3 grooves the hardest, feels the best, for me. That's how I would have mixed it. I thought perhaps that represented the monitor path that Steve actually mixed through, but I doubt it if it's not the analog.


In short, I'm going to contrast #1 with #8, in terms of low end.

Feel free to saw on either end of this limb.

-R


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 21, 2005, 04:34:48 PM
Quote:

For most of us who own PTHD and work professionally, the SYNC is a standard part of the system just like the 192, so we would have no reason to operate without it (except to use a third-party clock), nor a reason to operate using the internal clock on the 192.


I own Sync and yet use 192 Internal for my Master Clock.  Why?  Because on Dan Lavry's Forum I became convinced by Dan's argument that (paraphrasing) any reasonably-well designed internal clock will outperform any external clock due to necessary aspects of external clocking like cable capacitance, termination issues, introducing extra circuitry (like additional PLLs) into the clocking chain, etc.  Also I'm pretty sure earlier in this discussion someone reported that Sync has more jitter than the 192.  This whole evolving discussion reminds me of one of my favorite military sayings:

"Any intelligence is good intelligence until it is replaced by better intelligence".  

I must admit I haven't been so invested in or interested in a thread since... maybe since "Pro Tools Sound Quality" on the DUC (I think it was).  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 21, 2005, 04:46:27 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 15:00

If everyone is leaving the studios with refs that are changing the bottom end as much as this Lavry/Nuendo thing may have, Huston we have a much bigger problem.
Indeed!

I think we've got to look very hard at monitor paths and at converters. Monitoring off the console vs monitoring through converters.

I keep harping on DACs because I think I hear significant differences in how revealing they are of exactly this kind of issue. They undoubtedly make people change their mixes. It isn't just a pleasant tone thing. The "mixing in the box" problems may also be directly related to monitoring issues.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 04:55:47 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 13:46

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 15:00

If everyone is leaving the studios with refs that are changing the bottom end as much as this Lavry/Nuendo thing may have, Huston we have a much bigger problem.
Indeed!

I think we've got to look very hard at monitor paths and at converters. Monitoring off the console vs monitoring through converters.

I keep harping on DACs because I think I hear significant differences in how revealing they are of exactly this kind of issue. They undoubtedly make people change their mixes. It isn't just a pleasant tone thing. The "mixing in the box" problems may also be directly related to monitoring issues.


But it also seems as different converters are going to interact differently with different consoles there is no standard.

Meaning even if you are mr. analog going to 1/2 and make a ref for the band or label, there is a good chance it does not represent the mixes?

Of course I don't believe many of us have heard to the extreme some may say happened Friday.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: digiengineer on November 21, 2005, 05:38:21 PM
maarvold wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 13:34


I own Sync and yet use 192 Internal for my Master Clock.  Why?  Because on Dan Lavry's Forum I became convinced by Dan's argument that (paraphrasing) any reasonably-well designed internal clock will outperform any external clock due to necessary aspects of external clocking like cable capacitance, termination issues, introducing extra circuitry (like additional PLLs) into the clocking chain, etc.


Have you listened to the internal clock on the 192 versus the SYNC before taking Dan Lavry's word for it? I don't know the context his statement regarding internal clocks, I would presume it was in reference to his own converters and not the Digidesign 192. If he was speaking specifically of the 192 I/O, than he is unaware the amount of compromise made in the design of those units, particularly regarding the power supply. BTW each Digidesign unit (SYNC, 192, 96) utilizes a PLL in every point of the loop sync chain.

Relating to what Fletcher discovered, there is a difference when clocking internal versus the SYNC. As I said earlier, I've never done an analog transfer without the SYNC as the master clock, but I have listened to playback with and without it, and I prefer the sound of the SYNC over the internal clock. Apparently Digidesign does as well seeing as all of the demo rigs I've seen clock via the SYNC. YMMV.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 05:51:10 PM
Was there a 16/44.1 CDR burned at the same time?

Some earlier threads indicated this was being looked at.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 21, 2005, 05:52:30 PM
digiengineer wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 17:38

If he was speaking specifically of the 192 I/O, than he is unaware the amount of compromise made in the design of those units, particularly regarding the power supply. BTW each Digidesign unit (SYNC, 192, 96) utilizes a PLL in every point of the loop sync chain.



Interesting thought.  So the idea is that perhaps the cheap power supplies lead to greater jitter, or a somehow less stable clock, when a bunch of tracks are hitting the 192?  (I wonder if MM was using an external clock, or somehow synching from an external source, when he had problems with his transfers, or if he was using the internal clock.  My guess is the former.)

When those files' identities are revealed it will be interesting to compare the clocks.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 21, 2005, 05:54:24 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 17:51

Was there a 16/44.1 CDR burned at the same time?

Some earlier threads indicated this was being looked at.


That would be great to have.  The boomy system in my Explorer reveals all.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 05:57:17 PM
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 14:54

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 17:51

Was there a 16/44.1 CDR burned at the same time?

Some earlier threads indicated this was being looked at.


That would be great to have.  The boomy system in my Explorer reveals all.

-R


Or to take Nuendo out of the loop.  They talked about going to HHB.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: smazur on November 21, 2005, 06:03:22 PM
This thread is going in so many different directions. Someone let me know if I'm too off point.

Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 14:50


In converters the chipset is only a fraction of the sound -- the analog stage is just as critical.


Understood. You'll have to bear with me. I just recently learned there was difference between a resistor and an Ohm--I haven't quite gotten the digital thing down to a component level [insert emoticon here].

I found the following information on my bass-lite E-MU 1212M:

DSP: E-MU EMU10K (E-DSP) / ADC: AKM AK5394 / DAC: Cirrus Logic CS4398 / opamps: JRC NJM2068M

I'd be curious to know how much of this corresponds to the 192s, if that information is published. I couldn't find it on a quick Google search, only measurements. Can anyone detail the important technical differences between a 192 and a RADAR/Apogee/etc?

What would be the other critical parts of the "the analog stage"? Capacitors? Power supply? I've perused the Head-Fi forum (which is even geekier than this one), where people have gone to great trouble modding their pro-sumer soundcards, mainly replacing stock capacitors and opamps with premium ones, reportedly to dramatic sonic improvement. Here's a sample.

Some speculation has been made that the bass problem might be a current-on-demand issue. Is further discussion of these issues in a public forum likely to generate any real effort to understanding where the issue lies? What do you guys think?

Telefunky raises a good point when he asks, "Don’t transfers of all types change the sonic characteristics of a program in some way?" The further question is how much of a difference can be considered too much of a difference? To some, the 192 just doesn't cut it. Their disappointment might be analogous to buying a new A827 (if they were still in production) and finding out it didn't sound very good unless you bought an expensive, after market headblock.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 21, 2005, 06:18:57 PM
The lowend doesn't disappear, the l-m's punch up, and if you run an analyzer, you see that perception is making this impossible.

This was like a preparty CD, and a wankfest. "You don't know... what do I think?.."

Get the analyzer out, and see for yourself.

Bizzarrrrro...

Whatever.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 21, 2005, 06:46:48 PM
Quote:

Have you listened to the internal clock on the 192 versus the SYNC before taking Dan Lavry's word for it? I don't know the context his statement regarding internal clocks, I would presume it was in reference to his own converters and not the Digidesign 192.


The topic I refer to on Dan Lavry's Forum evolved into more of a technical harpooning of Apogee's Big Ben marketing claims than anything else.  Dan took Apogee on--claim by claim, issue by issue.  I think a few more relevant questions than your question to me (and your assumptions about Dan's explanation) are:


1. How can we easily tell when a clock is performing in a digital system with integrity as it relates to low jitter?  What are the sonic attributes (both additive AND subtractive)?  

2.If you (and others on this Forum) prefer the sound of a less stable clock, why might that be?  (This is not a slam--maybe there is something counter-intuitive about it that works... like the way 2 samples per cycle can be proven to accurately reconstruct a waveform).  
BTW, I will certainly take another listen to Sync vs 192 Internal

Quote:

If he was speaking specifically of the 192 I/O, than he is unaware the amount of compromise made in the design of those units, particularly regarding the power supply.


I'd be interested in any information regarding this claim.  

Quote:

 BTW each Digidesign unit (SYNC, 192, 96) utilizes a PLL in every point of the loop sync chain.


Right, but think it through: when the 192 Internal (first in the chain) is the Master Clock and it is also the record and playback interface, all clocking happens without (if MY assumption is correct) having any need to 'talk' to the outside world through cables, 'T' connectors, terminations, buffer amps, PLLs and the like.  As a matter of fact, there is no mention of Loop Sync in the Session Setup Window under this condition (except as it relates to the Sync hardware interface).  

BTW, long, long ago I asked--on Dan's Forum--how we could tell through listening about clock integrity.  I was informed, in no uncertain terms, that only technical matters would be discussed there--no sonics.  Unfortunate.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 21, 2005, 07:07:11 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 12:15

Today I have spoke with Fletcher, Gannon and Steve A.

Let's get this straight, none of them believes this test was a waste of time or irrelevant like some are suggesting. Everyone in attendance got some something out of this test beyond verifying or negating the under lying bass lite pink elephant claim.

None of  us are in disagreement with each-others  opinions or thoughts on weather or not the pink elephant was in the room, and it doesn't really matter what any of us think at this point.

I want to know what all of you think.

The big question is do these test files represent a reasonably close representation of what we heard during the live 2" playback, and the live 48k protools playback.

I think yes, plus it is all we have now which I feel is actually invaluable
to the question in front of us.

After discussing this with both Fletcher and Gannon, I will be calling Azoulas to ask him to post, in a poll thread, the 2", PT48 and Radar48. They will not be identified and will remain blind for a period of time.

The poll will ask if one of these is Bass Lite, or lacking balls in the low-end. Pick one or none.

Obviously the poll will give us a real meter to look at, so this public blind test should really tell us if this should matter in our lives anymore.

One thing I would like to see though, is mixerman make his pick known publicly in that thread, it's the least he could do.

I hope to get this going soon, but I still need to get in touch with Azoulas to see if he has the time today.

P.S.

I originally stated that the premise of the test was to see if the pink elephant showed up in the CR, and not to see if PT48 int. clk. could perfectly replicate a 2".

What I did not hear was a SEVER BASS LOSS. I did hear differences in the OVERALL sonics of the transfer which to me was certainly not  life or death. Any minor critical thoughts I had on that transfer were totally blown out by the PT48k digi sync i/o pass that Fletcher mentioned. And now as I sit here and listen to all the files in my space, it's getting even harder to find the pink elephant or the bear {if there ever was} , hiding behind the tree. I hear stuff but no SEVER BASS LOSS that would make my wife or maid scream.

After the test was over, one very well respected and acclaimed AE said, "well i guess we can get back to making music now".  

We now know, that we don't know, when challenged to go at it blind.




It doesn't get any better than this.

The odds are now 1 in 3 to find the Pro Tools file as opposed to 1 in 9 to find the analog 2" file.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: digiengineer on November 21, 2005, 08:18:16 PM
maarvold wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 15:46


1. How can we easily tell when a clock is performing in a digital system with integrity as it relates to low jitter?  What are the sonic attributes (both additive AND subtractive)?


Like anything else in audio, sonic attributes can be subjective. Every digital file in this test had a different characteristic, some determined by sample rate, others by clocking. Which of those variables sound better is determined by individual taste and not by technical explanation.

Quote:

2.If you (and others on this Forum) prefer the sound of a less stable clock, why might that be?


That would be a stated opinon and not a fact unless you present technical data stating otherwise. But for the sake of argument, let's say that is true, why do many people still prefer the sound of recording to rust glued on plastic despite the high noise floor and harmonic distortion? Of course, that's only meant to be a rhetorical question, but it does bring up the point I'm trying to make: just because the technical specs are better, it doesn't mean something sounds better. I've had people tell me the Big Ben is the "best sounding clock on the market" because someone looked at it on scope and saw it had 2 or 3 picoseconds less jitter than the Rosendahl Nanosyncs, yet when I ask the folks who actually listened to the two (ironically using Lavry converters as their AD-DA), they claim the Rosendahl sounds better. I'm sure I could fill another 5 pages with anecdotal supporting evidence, but that's why we use the phrase "your mileage my vary." I'm not saying you are wrong about your practical experience with the 192 internal clock sounding better to you, but you shouldn't base your decisions purely on the theories of Dan Lavry or any one else for that matter. As I said in another thread, I'd rather use my ears and listen directly to the source than take someone's word for it.

Quote:

Quote:

If he was speaking specifically of the 192 I/O, than he is unaware the amount of compromise made in the design of those units, particularly regarding the power supply.


I'd be interested in any information regarding this claim.


It not a big secret, in order to produce an affordable interface, compromises had to made. The 192 was originally going to have the ability to be a full 16 channel AD-DA, but power supply designs, heat, and cost prevented that. Pro Tools HD definitely wouldn't have been as successful sales wise if the 192 cost $6k to $7k each.

Quote:

Quote:

BTW each Digidesign unit (SYNC, 192, 96) utilizes a PLL in every point of the loop sync chain.


Right, but think it through: when the 192 Internal (first in the chain) is the Master Clock and it is also the record and playback interface, all clocking happens without (if MY assumption is correct) having any need to 'talk' to the outside world through cables, 'T' connectors, terminations, buffer amps, PLLs and the like.  As a matter of fact, there is no mention of Loop Sync in the Session Setup Window under this condition (except as it relates to the Sync hardware interface).


Yes, but that is assuming you only use one interface. If you run multiple interfaces, how do the other interfaces receive a common clock? Do you use loop sync or do you daisy through the word clock inputs and outputs? Do you use active or passive clock distribution? Either way, you still have to go through cables, PLLs, buffer amps, and (internal or external) termination no matter which option you choose.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 21, 2005, 09:30:04 PM
Well, I'm backed up about 50 posts...I'll have to go back and read when I get some free time.  I just wanted to put a post up quickly, especially to all that handled the actual CRC tests.  YES, over the weekend, I think the CRC tests got improperly railed on.  AFter hearing the 9 files for myself, and after Rail putting it to Mixerman that we should try identifying these files before moving into more tests, I agree with that position.  I think there is MUCH valuable info we can learn just from the files at hand.  I am in favor of not planning NEW tests until we have exhausted what there is to learn about the CRC tests.

Here's a test that I'd like to see tried with the existing files.

Start with 3 files, the analog, the Radar 48 and the PT 48 (I think you guys are already doing this).  THEN, put up a folder of 10 files, including at least one analog, one Radar 48 and one PT 48.  The other 7 files should be duplicates of any and/or all of these 3 files.  Why, you ask?  Well, when you have 3 files to choose from, it's a 33% chance that a person will get it right.  But in the context of 10 files, can we RELIABLY choose which file is which?  I guess this would be akin to medical tests, where they give some people the medicine and some the placebo.  They don't do this with a handful of people, they do it with a large number of people to eliminate coincidence, happenstance, etc.  Yes, people could pop the files into their DAW, line them up and see which ones null, thus finding the answer, but hopefully people would be honest enough to simply try to identify the files.

On a secondary note, I know that Bob O has experienced the same loss of low end energy that Mixerman and Slipperman, etc. have.  I was wondering if perhaps Bob had the necessary equipment to do his own testing (posting files for us) in which he compared files going into PT versus files going into Masterlink (those are the two formats he mentioned pages above, so I thought he might own this equipment).  If Bob had the equipment, he could take a 1/2" recording, pop it into PT and pop it into Masterlink to see if he's still missing low end impact or energy.  I'm sure the thought has occurred to him, and perhaps he doesn't have the equipment to do it.  I only have PT and 3348's here, no analog, no Radar and no Masterlink.

Mixerman has proposed doing just 3 files in his *new* test, and while I think there is value in having just 3 files, it must be presented to the listeners in a larger group of files as I've said above, so that we know that MANY people can RELIABLY pick out the various formats, and to be RELIABLE, we'd have to have more than just 3 choices, if you understand me.

Anyway, just a thought.  I like that we're focusing on the files at hand, because I'm having fun listening, and it's really giving my ears a workout.  To me, it's not that easy getting differences.  I have to run right now, but hopefully by tomorrow, I'll get a chance to catch up on all the posts that have occurred.  I had a busy day today.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: orbb on November 21, 2005, 10:21:40 PM
All you need is ears,

Wha wha wha wha wha-wha-wha

All you need is ears

Wha wha wha wha wha-wha-wha

All you need is ears

ears

ears are all you need.


Might explain the differences, no?

Or as Judge Chafin is prone to say,

"I think you boys are gagging on a gnat".  

You make you money by being able to discern the subtleties.  

I'm sure you are hearing (or not) something.  

But there's a big distance between here and there.

 
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maarvold on November 22, 2005, 01:19:52 PM
Quote:

Yes, but that is assuming you only use one interface. If you run multiple interfaces, how do the other interfaces receive a common clock? Do you use loop sync or do you daisy through the word clock inputs and outputs? Do you use active or passive clock distribution? Either way, you still have to go through cables, PLLs, buffer amps, and (internal or external) termination no matter which option you choose.


It seems to me that the test was about 2 channels in, 2 channels out, so Sync and additional interfaces were not needed to conduct the test.  My point is this: when using loop sync, I am going on the assumption (which may or may not be incorrect) that if 192 #1 is on Internal--regardless of what interfaces are also used in the system--the clocking happens SOLELY from the clock inside its chassis.  This, btw, was Dan Lavry's original premise in advocating an internal master clock as opposed to an external one.  Maybe people (at least 2) like Sync better because 192 #1 is the last item in the loop sync chain and loop sync influences 192 #1's internal clock.  In a way this might make sense, because that would [typically] put 192 #1 (if Sync was the master clock) 2nd in the 'food chain' instead of being "the last to know", as it would be if it was on Internal and was also being influenced by loop sync.  This is probably a concept worth exploring.  

Like I said earlier:
Any Intelligence Is Good Intelligence Until It Is Replaced By Better Intelligence.  

I try to learn something new every day, but it is difficult sometimes to separate facts from ego, politics, greed, agenda, etc.  DO NOT PERSONALIZE THIS--it is a general observation about how the world works from my pov.  

For the record, I never critically evaluated 192 Internal vs Sync.  When I hear things change appreciably between 150-600 Hz when switching between Aardsync, Sync and Internal, Loop Sync and individual WC Feeds, I want the one that's CORRECT, not the one I like the best (my assumption being that it will be doing the same thing--as much as it can--as correctly functioning systems of today and tomorrow) and therefore my intent will be represented as closely as possible on those systems.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 22, 2005, 06:47:10 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 15:51



My first impression is that I like 1 the best and 6 the least. The bass drum seems more driving and in rhythm on 1. Having nine files is pretty confusing. It makes sense to record the variations for later study but it doesn't make sense to just throw up nine different versions.




This was my conclusion on listening last night. There is a humpy in the lowmids that acts like a cloud.

OH! And they are still TOTALLY USABLE, COMPLETELY.

The difference is a preference, or not.. not nearly as pronounced as changing one SM57 for another. (heh.. goofs)


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 22, 2005, 08:56:29 PM
Fletcher wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 11:03



The test I noticed that was like night and day in the "A/B/X" thing was "test 9".  This was one where you'd have to be deafer than a fence post to not have immediately identified the two signals being radically different.  When I asked Azulas what they were when the whole thing had come to an end... guess what he said... "PT-48 and RADAR 48".  Night and fucking day.




This test, plus the 2" is now up for listening.

Later in your post you say "If someone can't tell the difference between those files then it would be the fault of the Lavry's..."

As you were listening to the Lavry files at the time, do you agree with the other poster that the Lavry's are the fairest test for comparison playback?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 22, 2005, 09:27:27 PM
I'm kind of double posting some of this, wondering which thread to be posting to.

I've listened to all the 9 files, and now to the newly posted 3 files, and I really have a tough time with one issue.

I don't hear any severe bass loss in any of these files.  Steve and Fletcher (both of whom have somewhat of a vested interest in their positions, Steve because he is a devout analog-ist, and Fletcher because he is a salesperson for Radar and not for PT) have stated that they both heard substantial bass loss in the room.

With that in mind, can either of you hypothesize on why we hear no severe bass loss in the posted files?  

I mean, if there were severe bass loss on one format at the time of the test, wouldn't that bass loss have translated into the eventual mix format (Nuendo)?  What is the explanation there?  With all due respect, especially to Fletcher and Mixerman, now there is suspicion on the Nuendo, suspicion on the Lavry's, etc.  But come on, those items were CONSTANTS in these tests, and it's really, really tough for me to think there was substantial bass loss in the room, yet it all but disappeared with a single A/D conversion into Nuendo.

So, what are your thoughts on the sudden disappearance of the bass loss?  This is really not making any sense at all...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on November 22, 2005, 10:27:20 PM
there was no severe bass loss for me.  end of story.  i am moving on.  i gots $&!t to do.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 23, 2005, 01:30:38 AM
The Resonater wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 21:27

So, what are your thoughts on the sudden disappearance of the bass loss?  .


I guess there was a loss of bass loss. An egregious loss of a palpable lack of balls.  Plus 6 db @ 50 hz. Those converters must really suck.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 23, 2005, 02:21:11 AM
The losses I could perceive, were negated by using a magnetic quilt, instead of my regular woolen duvet.

M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: electrical on November 23, 2005, 02:43:42 AM
The Resonater wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 21:27


I don't hear any severe bass loss in any of these files.  Steve and Fletcher (both of whom have somewhat of a vested interest in their positions, Steve because he is a devout analog-ist, and Fletcher because he is a salesperson for Radar and not for PT) have stated that they both heard substantial bass loss in the room.

I heard/reacted to a different quality in the low end. I don't know if I would have been able to quantify it as "loss," but that's as close as any descriptor would get. The low end sounded clearer/thinner/pick your adjective on the ProTools playbacks. I have avoided speaking about the Radar playback because I didn't give it my full attention, and I don't think I should say anything about it.

Quote:

With that in mind, can either of you hypothesize on why we hear no severe bass loss in the posted files?

I haven't got a clue. I am open to the idea that I made it all up, but I really don't believe that to be the case. I recall that all the differences we all heard were more muted in the A/B/X tests, not just the bass thing. I also recall thinking that the Nuendo files sounded uniformly more harsh and unpleasant to me, to the extent that I had real difficulty hearing differences that I thought were stark in the live mix playbacks, and they made my ears hurt a little bit. Does anyone else who was at the test wish to corroborate this?

I haven't got the means to play the files back in the studio, but I may rig something up when other matters are less pressing next week, out of curiosity.

Quote:

So, what are your thoughts on the sudden disappearance of the bass loss?  This is really not making any sense at all...

I agree with you. I have no answer for you.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: peyemp on November 23, 2005, 04:40:24 AM
my results at home, for what they are worth,,,  monitoring rig is less than optimal...

#1 has the largest low end presence.  I spot it every time, even trying to shuffle the tracks 'randomly' in the window.  has soft, even transients.  this is analog, or I need to go into real estate...


#2 thins out the low end right away.  badly.  grainy highs...  sounds like a smoothed-out ADAT.

#3, nicer lowend than #2.  not as big as #1.  more 'artifically articulated' than #1,, just not as smooth or large

#4  nicer than 2 or 3, getting as big as #1, but with a different focus.  transients getting artificial yet lowend is large and clear (may be good for classical music and bluegrass)

#5 Nice-- kick not popping as much as #1, but very nice structure.  Lows just slightly less foward than #1, and highs slightly more forward.  Acceptable.  

#6, not quite as focused as #1, kindof boxing up a bit on the low end of the snare and in a few other places.  Not bad though.  Low mids thinned out compared to #1.

#7,, not nearly as punchy, thinner (not neccessarily losing lows but just losing their character).  Grainy.  Details of drum transients are washed out.

#8 again, sounds like low mids are having an identity problem.  It's like a replica Strativarious,,, sortof looks and sounds like it, but is not it.  Grainy and lacking punch.

#9-- Nice !!! sounds close to #1, slightly less soft in the highs.  Transients are slightly clearer.  Very nice.  Still missing a bit of steam at the bottom of the snare compared to #1, but nice enough to use.


Thanks to everyone involved-- this is a cool test.

I would go with 1 as analog and 5 or 9 as RADAR.  Have the results been posted yet ?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 23, 2005, 04:51:22 AM
Everyone thinks the smooth ones are analog, the other good ones are radar, and the ones that 'suck most' are PT, and there is so little difference..

Except in the trashing hats, and segmented highs.

I stake something on one, and six. They stand away from the crowd, in some way.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 23, 2005, 11:32:24 AM
electrical wrote on Wed, 23 November 2005 02:43

I recall that all the differences we all heard were more muted in the A/B/X tests


If the mix ADC castrates the mixes, then it would tend to minimize the differences between the different formats.

For the sake of argument, imagine that any ADC (or at least all ADCs involved in this test) acts as a perfect high-pass filter at 50 Hz.  In the room, the 2" playback is not subject to any digitization . . . it doesnt' get filtered.  The PT192 mix is digitized . . . it gets filtered.  Then, as a means to archive these tests for "public consumption", both mixes are stored in a ADC+Nuendo rig.  Voila.  Both mixes are now castrated.

Of course, this is an extreme example of what might have happened on a more subtle level.  Just a theory.  (For the record, I always work "digitally", so I'm no analog freak.  No offense to the analog freaks, either.)
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 23, 2005, 11:55:34 AM
jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 23 November 2005 08:32

electrical wrote on Wed, 23 November 2005 02:43

I recall that all the differences we all heard were more muted in the A/B/X tests


If the mix ADC castrates the mixes, then it would tend to minimize the differences between the different formats.

For the sake of argument, imagine that any ADC (or at least all ADCs involved in this test) acts as a perfect high-pass filter at 50 Hz.  In the room, the 2" playback is not subject to any digitization . . . it doesnt' get filtered.  The PT192 mix is digitized . . . it gets filtered.  Then, as a means to archive these tests for "public consumption", both mixes are stored in a ADC+Nuendo rig.  Voila.  Both mixes are now castrated.

Of course, this is an extreme example of what might have happened on a more subtle level.  Just a theory.  (For the record, I always work "digitally", so I'm no analog freak.  No offense to the analog freaks, either.)


So as I asked before....Is this a problem with every digital system other than RADAR?  Hard to believe.

Fletcher said he heard a difference "night and fucking day" on the Nuendo files between the PT 48 and RADAR 48 that a deaf person could hear.

Obvoiusly, he felt it showed up on those files.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on November 24, 2005, 09:21:14 AM
As a sidenote..

try and load the output of the DA converter on a 192 with a 600 ohm resistor, 300 ohm stereo headphones (plug them in as a load in the send of a patchbay if you can..), or a transformer input...

monitor the sound as you change loads, it will change.

just because a converter doesn't have a transformer output doesn't mean it's impervious to loading issues..

it can actually be worse.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 24, 2005, 03:49:16 PM
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 24 November 2005 06:21

As a sidenote..

try and load the output of the DA converter on a 192 with a 600 ohm resistor, 300 ohm stereo headphones (plug them in as a load in the send of a patchbay if you can..), or a transformer input...

monitor the sound as you change loads, it will change.

just because a converter doesn't have a transformer output doesn't mean it's impervious to loading issues..

it can actually be worse.



Yes -- and that would fall under the category of misuse -- no Neve console's line inputs should have a low input impedance like 600 Ohms (unless some hack's been modifying it).  Generally the line input impedance should be 10kOhm or higher.

A quote from Geoff Tanner:

"Just about every Neve console built has a line input of 10Kohm and if PT can't drive that without fuss, there would be something seriously wrong with it.

One topic frequently overlooked is the effect of cable capacitance on a signal... particularly long cable runs where the capacitance takes a significant value. This may not be an issue of PT to the Neve, but would certainly effect the Neve to PT unless steps were taken to investigate the response and take the necessary corrective action."

------

If you're feeding an older piece of gear (like an LA-3a) into a 192 you should use another piece of gear like a 550A in bypass to match the expected input impedance.  This falls under the category of a recording engineer knowing the gear he (or she) is using (and get to use the title "Engineer").

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on November 25, 2005, 06:34:52 AM
every neve ever built has a 10K line input?

interesting.

I would have assumed that transformer input boards all had a lower impedance than 10k especially in the 50hz-and-below range.

weren't neve inputs 5K at 1000 Hz or something?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on November 25, 2005, 06:48:27 AM
Quote:

If you're feeding an older piece of gear (like an LA-3a) into a 192 you should use another piece of gear like a 550A in bypass to match the expected input impedance. This falls under the category of a recording engineer knowing the gear he (or she) is using (and get to use the title "Engineer").

Rail



if you're using an older piece of gear which needs termination INTO the input of a 10K input such as the 192 you terminate it with a resistor, not pass it through another amp!

that would be logical engineering practice..


if a 192 OUTPUT can't drive a 600 ohm load efficiently then it doesn't have a low enough and stable enough source impedance (50 ohms?) to be classified as professional quality..In other words be able to connect with ANY type of pro equipment.

otherwise pro-tools would be called semi-pro-tools.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on November 25, 2005, 08:17:25 AM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 23 November 2005 11:55

Fletcher said he heard a difference "night and fucking day" on the Nuendo files between the PT 48 and RADAR 48 that a deaf person could hear.

Obvoiusly, he felt it showed up on those files.


That was on one of the 18 A/B/X rounds.  Round 9 to be exact.  There was a palpable "night and day" difference between the two files.  I later asked Azoulas what the two files were; he said RADAR 48 and PT 48.  Now believe it or not, I did not make a value judgment of which of the two files I prefered.  That was not the point of the A/B/X test.  The point of that test was to identify which file was played twice... not which file sounded bigger, better, clearer, etc.  The two were indeed like night and day, but I frankly couldn't tell you which I prefered [I wasn't listening for that purpose].

As I mentioned earlier, I have a few thoughts on why I prefered what and will be playing with some things over the next few weeks... again, nothing conclusive, nothing life and death, but somethings that will hopefully start to answer some of my own questions [and make no mistake, this thing in Chicago brought on more questions for me than it answered].
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 25, 2005, 09:04:08 AM
jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 23 November 2005 10:32

If the mix ADC castrates the mixes, then it would tend to minimize the differences between the different formats...
True however high-passing these files shows there's lots of low frequency information in each of them. There do seem to be some phase relationship differences. I hope they did a phase pop as part of the setup. I've seen major studios that began outsourcing cables after years of building their own wind up with all sorts of unexpected wiring issues.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: David Kulka on November 25, 2005, 09:43:34 AM
Using a second piece of 600 ohm gear to terminate the first one doesn't really work, because then the second unit, patched into a 192 for example, faces the same problem -- it is missing it's termination, and is liable to have a little high frequency bump.

As Max pointed out, the accepted solution for the "vintage gear 600 ohm output Z" problem is a 600 ohm resistor connected to the output.  Voila, problem solved.

However with the 600 ohm resistor, there is one minor issue --if you add the resistors, and then patch from one terminating piece to another (say, Pultec to LA-2A), you now are double terminated!  If this concerns you, then instead of adding the resistors to the gear, solder them to some unused patch points in your bay, and patch or mult them to vintage gear outputs when needed.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 25, 2005, 09:59:27 AM
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 05:48

...otherwise pro-tools would be called semi-pro-tools.

Lots of contemporary gear only poses as pro! Rail's experience in lots of studios suggests the 192 is ok but this is why I'm not very skeptical about mixerman's report of losing balls.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 25, 2005, 11:15:52 AM
Quote:

Lots of contemporary gear only poses as pro! Rail's experience in lots of studios suggests the 192 is ok but this is why I'm not very skeptical about mixerman's report of losing balls.



Bob, it getting to be a broken record.

You continue to insist that maybe it is some combination of gear, or a cable issue or impedance issue, but if that is the case we could assume that it is a very random
circumstance. For any professional to criticize and crap on a company continuously for a random anomaly is ludicrous, and I don't mean the rapper.

This has been all about something so SEVERE and EGREGIOUS that the maid could identify it.

And, MM claims he has done numerous demonstrations repeating his claims, yet he has no files to document any of his findings?

As for the your thoughts, as always they are appreciated and very well respected, but you are grasping at straws with this one. Nobody, including myself, even doubt you or MM heard what you heard, but those situations are obviously as unique as an eclipse of the moon. If there was a major problem with the 192's, a lot of people would have noticed and agreed with MM, but that did not happen.

Also the other thing that kills me is even after discovering This "problem", MM continue 's using a piece of gear that he claims destroys audio, or has a :

SEVERE and EGREGIOUS effect on the sound,

loses the balls,

bass lite - drops at -6db @50-60 Hz.

Why would one work continue to work with something that has such a SEVERE and EGREGIOUS effect on the sound?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: archtop on November 25, 2005, 11:45:40 AM
Your blamming BOB for being a broken record  Laughing




Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 25, 2005, 12:55:38 PM
Fletcher wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 05:17

R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 23 November 2005 11:55

Fletcher said he heard a difference "night and fucking day" on the Nuendo files between the PT 48 and RADAR 48 that a deaf person could hear.

Obvoiusly, he felt it showed up on those files.


That was on one of the 18 A/B/X rounds.  Round 9 to be exact.  There was a palpable "night and day" difference between the two files.  I later asked Azoulas what the two files were; he said RADAR 48 and PT 48.  Now believe it or not, I did not make a value judgment of which of the two files I prefered.  That was not the point of the A/B/X test.  The point of that test was to identify which file was played twice... not which file sounded bigger, better, clearer, etc.  The two were indeed like night and day, but I frankly couldn't tell you which I prefered [I wasn't listening for that purpose].

As I mentioned earlier, I have a few thoughts on why I prefered what and will be playing with some things over the next few weeks... again, nothing conclusive, nothing life and death, but somethings that will hopefully start to answer some of my own questions [and make no mistake, this thing in Chicago brought on more questions for me than it answered].




It's an interesting listen and worth checking it out in a few different rooms and combos of gear.

Another thing to look at as a side note, is to go back to the 9 files test and listen for 96k.  Is that a big difference to everyone?

Once the files are revealed, we can all listen for those differences.

Huge thanks to Fletcher for hosting the post test postathon.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: peyemp on November 25, 2005, 01:08:22 PM
This may be shocking to some, but sometimes measured low-end is not the same as perceived low end.  I've literally blown woofers with digital EQs where I still couldn't hear any low end, and yet a small addition with analog eq made a massive change to the sound.  

My opinion (not worth much if you judge by number of posts) is that Mixerman heard a different character of lowend which is less punchy and less present.  Not so much a measurable loss, but a perceived loss (harmonics and imaging).  

It seems that no one can possibly believe that someone can hear a difference between these files since they can't....  I heard a distinct, noticable difference between these tracks, and those on MM's test page.  Everytime.  The lowend was artifical and boxy on all but 3 of the 9 and 1 of the 3.  There was no punch in the bottom of the snare in those tracks.  There was a counterfeit lowend, but it was not at all like the other tracks...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 25, 2005, 01:24:26 PM
peyemp wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 10:08

This may be shocking to some, but sometimes measured low-end is not the same as perceived low end.  I've literally blown woofers with digital EQs where I still couldn't hear any low end, and yet a small addition with analog eq made a massive change to the sound.  

My opinion (not worth much if you judge by number of posts) is that Mixerman heard a different character of lowend which is less punchy and less present.  Not so much a measurable loss, but a perceived loss (harmonics and imaging).  

It seems that no one can possibly believe that someone can hear a difference between these files since they can't....  I heard a distinct, noticable difference between these tracks, and those on MM's test page.  Everytime.  The lowend was artifical and boxy on all but 3 of the 9 and 1 of the 3.  There was no punch in the bottom of the snare in those tracks.  There was a counterfeit lowend, but it was not at all like the other tracks...



First, time will tell if you have identified the correct files.

Second, there has been no claims of the bottom of the snare going away or "artificial" low end. It was a simple claim, now identified as SEVERE loss of low end (in the 50 to 60HZ range).  Any new observations are welcome, however.

Third, how are you comparing an analog EQ and a digital EQ?  Did they both have the same Q?  Shelf?  Did one go down to DC and the other roll off at 25?  Were they equal in "stature"?

Hard to tell.

This claim of "counterfeit" low end needs to be explained further.   It's a new one for me.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 25, 2005, 01:29:20 PM
"My opinion (not worth much if you judge by number of posts) is that Mixerman heard a different character of lowend which is less punchy and less present. Not so much a measurable loss, but a perceived loss (harmonics and imaging). "



------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------


No doubt about it, and  MM should be able to find the golden goose no problem.

But, I'd also like to point out that there is a big difference between a perceived loss, and a severe and glaring loss.

That was the claim.

If he had said he, "heard a different character of lowend which is less punchy and less present", none of this BS would have evolved to where it is today, so MM either needs to clarify his original claim with some simple rewording or stick to the original claim.

The question still remains, is it a perceived loss or a severe and glaring loss?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 25, 2005, 01:55:38 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 10:29

"My opinion (not worth much if you judge by number of posts) is that Mixerman heard a different character of lowend which is less punchy and less present. Not so much a measurable loss, but a perceived loss (harmonics and imaging). "



 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------


The question still remains, is it a perceived loss or a severe and glaring loss?


Somebody should take a RADAR file and transfer it to a 2" 16 track @ 15 IPS with 456 and a 2" 24 track @ 30ips with GP9.

That will show some bottom end differences.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blairl on November 25, 2005, 02:26:02 PM
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 04:48

if a 192 OUTPUT can't drive a 600 ohm load efficiently then it doesn't have a low enough and stable enough source impedance (50 ohms?) to be classified as professional quality..In other words be able to connect with ANY type of pro equipment.

otherwise pro-tools would be called semi-pro-tools.


Dave Clementson, one of the designers of the 192 I|O, said that the outputs use a "Meitner discrete class-A topology", and that the output impedance is "50 ohms per leg, so it is capable of driving extremely demanding loads".
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 25, 2005, 02:28:29 PM
David Kulka wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 03:48


Using a second piece of 600 ohm gear to terminate the first one doesn't really work, because then the second unit, patched into a 192 for example, faces the same problem -- it is missing it's termination, and is liable to have a little high frequency bump.

As Max pointed out, the accepted solution for the "vintage gear 600 ohm output Z" problem is a 600 ohm resistor connected to the output. Voila, problem solved.

However with the 600 ohm resistor, there is one minor issue --if you add the resistors, and then patch from one terminating piece to another (say, Pultec to LA-2A), you now are double terminated! If this concerns you, then instead of adding the resistors to the gear, solder them to some unused patch points in your bay, and patch or mult them to vintage gear outputs when needed.


Not if you're in a pro studio which has all their gear rack mounted and you can't access the gear -- the 550A trick does work (especially to balance the output of an unbalanced device easily).

My post was pointing out that the Neve consoles have a high enough line input impedance not to affect the 192 -- so that shouldn't be considered as a problem causing low end loss (which doesn't occur).

I've never personally had any issues plugging an LA2A output directly into a 192 -- so the 192 appears to handle the low output impedance fine...  Some modern gear however can't.  The point I was attempting to make was that an engineer should be aware of how some gear may not play happily with other items in the control room... and know what to do in those situations.  Just throwing up your hands and claiming something is broken isn't the correct response.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on November 25, 2005, 02:55:39 PM
the problem with plugging an la2a into a 192 is due to transformer ringing and accentuated HF.. Lack of termination in other words.

signal will always pass.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on November 25, 2005, 03:04:59 PM
Quote:

Dave Clementson, one of the designers of the 192 I|O, said that the outputs use a "Meitner discrete class-A topology", and that the output impedance is "50 ohms per leg, so it is capable of driving extremely demanding loads".




I wish pro companies would publish schematics like in the old days..

what does that mean?


...I remember that one of the first tascam 4-track cassette recorders I bought had all the schematics.. why doesn't pro tools.....?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 25, 2005, 03:08:46 PM
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 11:55

the problem with plugging an la2a into a 192 is due to transformer ringing and accentuated HF.. Lack of termination in other words.


Have you actually experienced this phenomenon yourself personally?  Either all the LA2A's I've used have been terminated by the studios -- or I haven't seen this occur.

I normally use an LA-2A on bass... and sometimes on lead vocal.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: David Kulka on November 25, 2005, 04:52:34 PM
LA-2A's absolutely, positively need to be terminated with 600 ohms to work properly.  It's easy to measure, and easy to hear.  From what I've seen over the last 25 years, about half the ones in use have termination resistors connected (because somebody knew what was going on) and the other half don't.  Since the connections are on the back of the unit, there's no way to be sure whether one is terminated without going behind the rack (or pulling the thing out) and having a look.

An LA-2A with a built in termination resistor will work properly with any modern, bridging input.  But if you connect an unterminated LA-2A to a bridging input like a 192, there will be a small frequency response error.  It's not a matter of the 192 "handling" a certain impedance.  It's a matter of the LA-2A needing its output impedance to be matched, which a modern bridging device just cannot do.

a 550A really won't work to correct an impedance mismatch, unless somebody has done the resistor trick on ITS output.  And we want to be careful with this because acccording to the specs I have on file, the older 550A's were 600 ohms, but the newer ones aren't.

Another reason this is less than optimal is that the bypass switch on a 550 EQ is not a hardwire bypass.  It effectively "zeroes" the EQ settings, but the 550's electronics are still in the signal path, adding their bit of noise and doing all the other stuff they do.  (It was designed this way because in the API consoles, the amplifiers in the 550 were an integral part of the channel signal path.)

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 25, 2005, 05:02:04 PM
Correct, if the 550A had a hard bypass... the trick wouldn't work (you also failed to mention the 1.3:1 gain through the 550A in bypass).  The 550A is unbalanced in and balanced out -- how would they have done a hard bypass?  Odds are most studios I work in have their LA2A's terminated -- I've never had the need to look since I haven't experienced any issues.

My point is - if I plugged an LA2A into my 192 and noticed an EQ change.. I'd know what to look for.. I wouldn't blame the 192.

I love this quote from Bob Katz:

"If leaping to conclusions was an Olympic event, audio engineers would win the gold medal. There's nothing wrong with Pro Tools as a capture medium....If you hear differences when passing signal through Pro Tools, blame your D/A converters, not Pro Tools."

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 25, 2005, 05:32:41 PM
Interesting.  Is that why some keyboards and drum machines don't sound good when plugged straight into an interface, even though they seem to have enough level to work?  They loose bass and sound very thin.  Plugging them into a DI or a David Carol box seems to fix things up nicely.  It's just an impedence mismatch, right?

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 25, 2005, 05:44:01 PM
Correct.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 25, 2005, 06:10:22 PM
just a quick note: impedance refers to ac resistance and varies with frequency, but can be used for resistance correctly.  Resistance is typically a DC reference.  And then we could throw in capacitive and inductive reactance for fun to make things impossible to accurately determine.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rankus on November 25, 2005, 06:53:12 PM
danickstr wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 15:10

varies with frequency, .


Thats what I was thinking...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 26, 2005, 01:14:09 AM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 22:32

Interesting.  Is that why some keyboards and drum machines don't sound good when plugged straight into an interface, even though they seem to have enough level to work?  They loose bass and sound very thin.  Plugging them into a DI or a David Carol box seems to fix things up nicely.  It's just an impedence mismatch, right?

Steve


I started a thread for exploring these very same issues on Gearslutz not too long ago. Unfortunately the thread became deluged with flames and insults of the "You Don't Know What A DI Box Is? How Stupid Of You!" variety.

How ironic, it comes up again here, on this issue, in present company.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: David Kulka on November 26, 2005, 01:19:18 AM
At the risk of beating the 550A side topic to death...

Early 550A's, with two 2520's and a bunch of little discrete transistor stages, were unbalanced in.  Both the input and the output connections had taps for low or high impedance.

The later 550A-1, with one 2520 and several 8-pin ("indiscreet"? Surprised) opamps, had a balanced input.  The 1:3 output transformer provided make-up gain at the output that compensated for attenuation at the front end of the EQ but basically, the equalizer was a unity gain device.

OK, enough about 550A's now, and back to the castrato converter debates.  My two cents?

As a friend mentioned the other day, a lot of this must be visual.  Stack a 1 RU dbx 160x up against some big, beefy, heavy, hot, high voltage tube compressor.  Alex Trebek walks in the room and asks which of the two is ballsy -- your eye is gonna go right to the big hot tube compressor even if it's capacitors are shriveled like prunes and it barely even passes low end.

I also think snob appeal and "what you already purchased" plays a big part in these discussions, but I think I better stop now...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 26, 2005, 01:31:37 AM
Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 10:15

...For any professional to criticize and crap on a company continuously for a random anomaly is ludicrous
I watch people do exactly that around here all the time.

It's always ridiculously easy to fool ourselves. One unexpected random negative experience and we think we hear the same thing everywhere. A random unexpected positive experience and its just gotta be the greatest piece since sliced bread.

The problem is listening with our brain or our eyes instead of with our ears. We ALL hear exactly what we expect to hear most of the time. Maintaining objectivity is probably the toughest single part of our job after client relations.

A first step is realizing that there can be very real random occurrences or conditions that lead others to opposite opinions. As we let go of our own concepts, we can begin to experience what is really working and what is not. That's the only part of any of this that really matters.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: robmix on November 26, 2005, 01:52:23 AM
These are two of the best posts I've ever read. Thanks Ron and Bob !!!!


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 26, 2005, 04:30:00 AM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 01:31

Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 10:15

...For any professional to criticize and crap on a company continuously for a random anomaly is ludicrous
I watch people do exactly that around here all the time.

It's always ridiculously easy to fool ourselves. One unexpected random negative experience and we think we hear the same thing everywhere. A random unexpected positive experience and its just gotta be the greatest piece since sliced bread.

The problem is listening with our brain or our eyes instead of with our ears. We ALL hear exactly what we expect to hear most of the time. Maintaining objectivity is probably the toughest single part of our job after client relations.

A first step is realizing that there can be very real random occurrences or conditions that lead others to opposite opinions. As we let go of our own concepts, we can begin to experience what is really working and what is not. That's the only part of any of this that really matters.



This is so right on man. My experience for example was, I had a good number of very bad things go down at pro tools sessions with the 888's. Lot's of crashes with the software and I just never liked the earlier PT interfaces. I have been using tape,real tape, and narrow stuff since I was a little kid. I just like how it sounds. Period.

Back then,I didn't like how DIGI treated us and so on and so on,, ,,, Now, I hear records that were made in Pro Tool's and they sound just KILLER! , I hear folks say they can tell if a record was made in PT and I say, what they really can hear is a record that isn't engineered so well..

What I'm saying is, I'm moving back to tape because I love it. Not because I DON'T like PT's.. To the extent that I will be using a DAW, which will still be a lot, I think other stuff is better from a HUI perspective .. I say, a good engineer should be able to get great, not just good results from any of the formats now. Period.

This has nothing to do with how the 192's sound though or whether or not they drop the ass end from everything that passes through them. If they do,and I end up making a record on them, I'll still make a fine record.

I have found  that the power of what is already in the mind is huge when it comes to what we think we are going to hear compared to what IS being heard. It's very very tricky indeed.

I Rambled, sorry..
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on November 26, 2005, 05:46:22 AM
perhaps the biggest inhibiting factor is that people are used to blindly accepting what SHOULD be.

these kinds of tests should be regularly published and overseen by trusted veterans. (like on this forum?)

this way manufacturers would be forced to compete based on quality instead of marketing..

the only possible downside is that after a few years the tests may become biased... but there are ways of avoiding that I believe.



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 26, 2005, 08:31:49 AM
Lots of people get excited about our Motown equalizers.

The reason they were built was that graphics with sliders were unreliable yet we felt they were the most useful equalizers available in 1965. In addition, no equalizer had an easy way to match levels for a flat vs. equalized comparison. We had learned that worse almost always sounds "better" when it is even the slightest bit louder. The idea of the equalizer was to make it a bit easier to not hype ourselves. We fight bias every day of our lives. It's unfortunate that simple ABX tests pretty much only confuse us because while they are very sensitive when it comes to studying the point at which known artifacts become audible, they are generally worse than dead reckoning when it comes to revealing the unexpected.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 26, 2005, 12:06:29 PM
BOB O.QUOTE:

Quote:

It's unfortunate that simple ABX tests pretty much only confuse us because while they are very sensitive when it comes to studying the point at which known artifacts become audible, they are generally worse than dead reckoning when it comes to revealing the unexpected.


This is not that in what you see in this,

BOB O.QUOTE:

Quote:

 The problem is listening with our brain or our eyes instead of with our ears. We ALL hear exactly what we expect to hear most of the time. Maintaining objectivity is probably the toughest single part of our job after client relations.




or that. Smile



We now have It broken down to 3 files {ABC}. It's pretty clear that this informal "test"
is not brain surgery and more of a guessing game. I hope MM shares all of his picks with us, as picking the PT file could just be dumb luck. This poll now points to fact that there is no validity to mixermans SEVERE bass loss claim. It does not exist and never did. Now did he hear a cleaner bottom, or a loss of balls due to bad cables or a wacky impedance, maybe, but there is obviously no severe bass loss in these files.

The other thing I find really interesting is the lack of interest in this. Since last Monday there have only been 46 votes? This obviously is not very important to a lot of people.

The real file names of 1-12 will be released on Wednesday by Azuolas.

I think I will shut down this poll, either today or tomorrow. The results have been consistent and clear through out.

For me and many, this is obviously a dead issue. MM can do another 5 tests if he wants to and they won't matter because he is not really "testing", he is recreating something he claims to have heard and done in multiple demonstrations.

He will being doing his LA transfer behind close doors, and he is offering no form of documentation of how it was executed or what the results and findings were beyond him being able to say, "I heard it again, and the dudes I invited our severely deaf." He has not invited DIGI who would most likely be a willing and obvious participant to have there. Well respected people here have turned him down to participate. It will be done in a "fair and balanced" marsh like way that suits mixermans needs and agenda.

I can already see how this is going to play out, and I already feel bad for MM. Laughing  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 26, 2005, 01:53:00 PM
Ron,

One could argue that the lack of voting or responses to the test now as opposed to it's lead up shows how close the files sound in terms of bottom end.

It is hard to believe that as vocal as Mixerman was the day after the test and the files went up, that a week later he has not driven to a studio he knows and listened just out of morbid curiosity.  He claims he is in the middle of a project.  45 seconds before the session starts to hear the files?  Logical it would have happened, but also speculation based on that logic.

Was this test done to pile on Mixerman?  No, and we should all remember that.

Will he do another test?  Maybe.  Hard to tell.  We can't pre judge what will happen outside of the bazaar exchanges right after the test.

The fact that this was done with 2" 16 track analog recorded by Steve Albini, was kept "honest" by virtue of the attendees, makes this a hard test to beat.

If Mixerman wants to take a new test into his own forum, why not?  Most people there already believe his current claims.  He would be preaching to his own choir.  His original claims already have it's converts. His test will only have credibility based on how it is executed and discussed.  That's obvious.

This test was done for one reason.  Does the 192 suffer a severe bottom end loss when transferring from 2" analog?

The files from this test do not show this to have happened based on the comments so far.

Edit/Addition:

If some people wait until the files are revealed to comment, those comments will obviously need to be filtered through possible bias.

By the time the files are revealed on Wed. more than 11 days will have passed since the original 9 file group was posted and 9 days since the 3 file group.

If all of a sudden the files are revealed and everyone can identify each file, that will be "funny" and telling regarding bias.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 26, 2005, 03:46:19 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 13:53

If Mixerman wants to take a new test into his own forum, why not?  Most people there already believe his current claims.  He would be preaching to his own choir.  His original claims already have it's converts. His test will only have credibility based on how it is executed and discussed.  


If the results don't exist outside of the room, then everybody's time is being wasted.  

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 26, 2005, 05:10:54 PM
Well, I was not at the Chicago test and I can't down load the 96-k files. As far as I'm concerned, in the room is the only way to listen to this. Having said that, it wont change much. If PT drops some bottom, it drops some bottom. I wont stop the session. In the trenches, I'll mix the damn thing and it will sound fine...


My whole "thing" from the very beginning was, if you dump these files into another software program using another set of converters, you are no longer hearing what is in the room. Period. This means,,

A. PT drops bottom, but who cares because we are going to mix the tune anyhow.
B. People like me should have never stopped using tape because of shit like this.
C.Do a test where you  have folks listen to two things in the control room, without knowing which machine is running.
D. Lets make records on what ever happens to be laying around please. It really is about making sure you,'ve got the right mics and players and stuff,,,, Right?
E. Those who hear this should not use PT. Those that do not can if they would like.


So, that's my thing, I think way way to much time was spent doing a test that most of us knew was being done wrong and all this energy could have been put into writing great songs or making great wine or something..


Question.  What is the deal with this 96-k shit?!?! JEEZZ!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 26, 2005, 05:31:08 PM
ivan40 wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 22:10

Well, I was not at the Chicago test and I can't down load the 96-k files.

So, that's my thing, I think way way to much time was spent doing a test that most of us knew was being done wrong...


Ivan,

What happens when you download the files? Or can't you even do that?  

And when you say, "...too much time was spent doing a test that most of us knew was being done wrong...", what do you mean?  When the methodology threads of the test were running, did you post about what was wrong with the testing method?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 26, 2005, 05:49:01 PM
The Resonater wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 17:31

ivan40 wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 22:10

Well, I was not at the Chicago test and I can't down load the 96-k files.

So, that's my thing, I think way way to much time was spent doing a test that most of us knew was being done wrong...


Ivan,

What happens when you download the files? Or can't you even do that?  

And when you say, "...too much time was spent doing a test that most of us knew was being done wrong...", what do you mean?  When the methodology threads of the test were running, did you post about what was wrong with the testing method?




Hi,,

Yeah I can down load the files here on my mac but I can't play them and don't have a burner to take them up to the DAW. I personally have no reason to ever use 96-k files and don't use them.

I except your point about me not having anything to say about the Methodology up front. Having said that, I find myself completely amazed that anyone thought that anything other than an "IN ROOM" listening test, direct from the source would tell much.

Look, I can see how you are saying "Monday Morning quarterback" and that is totally valid. But I, am down the food chain a ways here. I don't quite have the experience that Fletcher, Steve, and all the rest of these really smart guy's with all this Credit behind them have. {I'm not being funny, I respect the hell out of every one of you guys!!},, I really thought I would be speaking out of school. Perhaps I was wrong.

I don't in any way mean to say that folks are not well meaning here. I just would have done it completely differently ,that's all. In fact, I might go do it up the road hear. All the tools in question are 10 minutes away from me, except, the tape machine is 24 MCI.

I have not heard this thing, I wish there were 44.1 files.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 26, 2005, 06:02:38 PM
[quote title=ivan40 wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 22:49][quote title=The Resonater wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 17:31]
ivan40 wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 22:10

Hi,,

Yeah I can down load the files here on my mac but I can't play them and don't have a burner to take them up to the DAW. I personally have no reason to ever use 96-k files and don't use them.

I except your point about me not having anything to say about the Methodology up front. Having said that, I find myself completely amazed that anyone thought that anything other than an "IN ROOM" listening test, direct from the source would tell much.



Ivan,

You should be able to open the files up right in iTunes, no?  Double click the files...they don't play?  Plug your headphones in and see what you think.  

The tests were conducted to see what kind of differences occur when transferring 2" to Pro Tools and 2" to Radar.  Sure, in-room listening is always best, but that's not always feasible in a country that covers nearly 5 million square miles.  Besides, the tests were apparently made because of previous accusations that Pro Tools drops the low octave of audio upon transfer (or something to that effect), and in that case, one would hope to be able to hear such a thing from 24/96 files made of the test.  My point on asking you about the tests being wrong is that the principals holding the tests spent a good deal of time figuring out the most fair and accurate way to conduct the test, so overall, the concept was pretty well thought out.

Listen to the files and see what you think...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 26, 2005, 06:15:08 PM
I don't have itunes ;-} I'm a dandy piece of work hey'?'"

I will get the files though. I'll have a friend burn them for me. I really should listen to them. I'll bet it's an interesting listen. Again, I'm sure all the folks involved thought it through and agreed on what they thought was best.

Let me ask a question,, Is there a difference between printing through great converters into a stand alone CD recorder, and printing through the same converters into a software program? Is the software invisible if no gain changes are made?

Another one,, Is it wise to use distorted bass program for this test? I need to hear this..

Thanks for your thoughts. Your point's are well taken.

Ivan.................
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 26, 2005, 06:21:06 PM
ivan40 wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 14:49

I find myself completely amazed that anyone thought that anything other than an "IN ROOM" listening test, direct from the source would tell much.


This test was done to see if there was anything to a very specific claim -- that a 2" Studer transfer to RADAR did not suffer any low end loss, while a 2" Studer transfer to Pro Tools using 192 I/O's suffered "egregious" loss that "your maid could hear".

This test absolutely disproves those claims - when the transfers are done correctly using well maintained equipment.

Normal sonic differences should be expected when using different converters -- but nothing "egregious".  It's also expected that the digitized signal won't sound as good as the analog original (on any system) -- but the loss should be acceptable and in some contexts even preferred.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 26, 2005, 06:31:28 PM
ivan40 wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 15:15


Let me ask a question,, Is there a difference between printing through great converters into a stand alone CD recorder, and printing through the same converters into a software program? Is the software invisible if no gain changes are made?

Ivan.................


They used Lavry Blue converters (Lavry used to be called DB Technologies if I am not mistaken) into Nuendo for the mix medium.

There has never been a claim before this test of Lavry or Nuendo dropping bottom end.  In fact, that's why both were chosen.

Here's the "rub".  If the idea of this test was to claim the 192 suffers from a severe loss of bottom end, but other digital devices do not, then when people then claim a problem with the Lavry and Nuendo, then it's not a Pro Tools problem.

It's Nuendo and Lavry, it's Slipperman's Digital Performer set up, it's everything BUT, some want to claim, RADAR.

Brad and Bob O sure found plenty of bottom end on these files - not as Nuendo and the Lavry had chopped it off.

As for people hearing the differences in the room live?  They knew what format was being heard.  Should that be taken into account?  Are the files screwed up?  How?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 26, 2005, 06:37:03 PM
Gosh I hate to see HD192 digital conversion artifacts listed as "preferred in some contexts."  But to each his own.  I certainly do not prefer them to a converter prepared with a bit more attention to sonic accuracy and its preservation.   Smile   I wouldn't be surprised if a major portion of the "troublesome sound" with PT transfers lies in the 192s.  It amazes me that people go so far in buying studio gear, and then fall short on converters or clocking.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 26, 2005, 06:38:59 PM
danickstr wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 15:37

Gosh I hate to see HD192 digital conversion artifacts listed as "preferred in some contexts."  But to each his own.  I certainly do not prefer them to a converter prepared with a bit more attention to sonic accuracy and its preservation.   Smile   I wouldn't be surprised if a major portion of the "troublesome sound" with PT transfers lies in the 192s.  It amazes me that people go so far in buying studio gear, and then fall short on converters or clocking.


The 192 was the focus of the test.  There was no internal PT processing or fader changes.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 26, 2005, 06:46:54 PM
danickstr wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 15:37

Gosh I hate to see HD192 digital conversion artifacts listed as "preferred in some contexts."  But to each his own.  I certainly do not prefer them to a converter prepared with a bit more attention to sonic accuracy and its preservation.   Smile   I wouldn't be surprised if a major portion of the "troublesome sound" with PT transfers lies in the 192s.  It amazes me that people go so far in buying studio gear, and then fall short on converters or clocking.


Even Fletcher said he liked some of the sonic aspects of the 192's -- each engineer will have his preference.. that doesn't make the other one bad -- it's just different.

My post mentioned that any converter may be preferred in some contexts to the analog original - it said nothing about "artifacts".

Your characterisation of the 192 is obviously biased and has no foundation in fact -- the designers of the 192 are very well respected actually (Google "Ed Meitner" and "Bruce Jackson").  George Massenburg prefers the 192 over converters costing much more.

Bottom line, the RADAR and Pro Tools converters sound different -- neither loses "balls" or bottom end.  Choose whichever you prefer (as with anything in life).  This was never a test to say I prefer the sound of one over the other -- it was a test to determine if one was broken.. which has resoundingly been disproved.

Some engineers like API's, others prefer Neve... and others may even like SSL.  Use what you prefer and make music.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 26, 2005, 06:47:15 PM
I didn't realize it was the only part of the test.  I thought somehow clocking or PT file storage was also a factor.  But assuming it was, then I would have named it the 192 test.  Anyway, I have a hard time believing anyone who wasn't on DIGI's payroll would not prefer a higher quality converter.  I am not sure who is on their payroll and who isn't anymore.  Payroll including free gear, etc.  A BMW 525 is a cool car that will get you down the road.  But I would prefer an Astin-Martin.  Cheesy old car analogy but completely appropriate.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 26, 2005, 06:51:20 PM
danickstr wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 15:47

I didn't realize it was the only part of the test.  I thought somehow clocking or PT file storage was also a factor.  But assuming it was, then I would have named it the 192 test.  Anyway, I have a hard time believing anyone who wasn't on DIGI's payroll would not prefer a higher quality converter.  I am not sure who is on their payroll and who isn't anymore.  Payroll including free gear, etc.  A BMW 525 is a cool car that will get you down the road.  But I would prefer an Astin-Martin.  Cheesy old car analogy but completely appropriate.


What the test is about:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/7773/1372/?SQ=f 54ccfa794b434102f489536230a0012

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 26, 2005, 06:52:50 PM
danickstr wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 15:47

I didn't realize it was the only part of the test.  I thought somehow clocking or PT file storage was also a factor.  But assuming it was, then I would have named it the 192 test.  Anyway, I have a hard time believing anyone who wasn't on DIGI's payroll would not prefer a higher quality converter.  I am not sure who is on their payroll and who isn't anymore.  Payroll including free gear, etc.  A BMW 525 is a cool car that will get you down the road.  But I would prefer an Astin-Martin.  Cheesy old car analogy but completely appropriate.


Go back and read the test methodology threads. It's all about the 192.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 26, 2005, 06:56:29 PM
OK.  Then I don't see why it was a focus on the bottom end, but whatever.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 26, 2005, 06:59:00 PM
danickstr wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 15:56

OK.  Then I don't see why it was a focus on the bottom end, but whatever.


To know the history.. you have to read the Digidesign User Conference threads linked to here:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/104094/1372/?SQ =a827e041c12fce6af98c08f451d8d987#msg_104094

Mixerman made a very specific claim -- this was a test to either reproduce it or disprove it.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 26, 2005, 07:00:44 PM
OK.  My memory is not that great, I admit, so I will go back and reread that thread.  Man, this is complicated. Laughing
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 26, 2005, 07:05:16 PM
danickstr wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 15:56

OK.  Then I don't see why it was a focus on the bottom end, but whatever.


The files are posted to everyone to hear and at this point blind.

This is the best time to listen and get a feel for each and then see what you heard VS what is what.  

There is plenty of chatter from people who think they know which file is which, but it's not always consistent.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: NotEasilyAmused on November 27, 2005, 10:00:46 AM
David Kulka wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 16:52

LA-2A's absolutely, positively need to be terminated with 600 ohms to work properly.  It's easy to measure, and easy to hear.  From what I've seen over the last 25 years, about half the ones in use have termination resistors connected (because somebody knew what was going on) and the other half don't.  Since the connections are on the back of the unit, there's no way to be sure whether one is terminated without going behind the rack (or pulling the thing out) and having a look.


One of the negative things about modern facilities existing so much "in the box" and with hardware that requires less calibration/tweaking/maintenance is that there are fewer full time staff engineers (I mean tech/maintenance/system engineers). Back in the day (not THAT long ago) when I worked in a large facility with an engineering staff, no engineer would mod gear without documenting it somewhere (at least on a schematic) AND making a note ON THE PIECE OF GEAR ITSELF.

As those days recede, we pay for our lack of discipline in subtle ways. Sometimes with a little less bass or an altered freq. response. Other times it's worse... and worse yet it goes unnoticed.

NEA
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 11:47:44 AM
I spoke to Fletcher about this...I just want to bring it up. Those of us that work with both the 2"/console platforms and PT's have noticed the "bass deal" more than once.

We run the piss out of the 2" machines, often way in the red during printing and they always roll off the upper fq a shade and give a "beefier tone" when you are close to tape saturation. This is old assed knowledge. The bottom "blooms" on tape when pushed.

If this test was done with the 2" running conservative levels, the "bloom affect" simply will not show itself as it will during "real world printing".

Again, we run the 'fuck' out of our 2 inch machines..especially on guitars..for that "tape tone". Everyone here that uses 2" knows that we lay the meters over... against the wall. Sometimes they STAY over there..and it will affect "tone".

Both in the console and in the tape itself.

There you go..
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 27, 2005, 11:57:53 AM
It's really funny how no-one questioned the material before the test  Twisted Evil

The level printed to tape wouldn't affect the voltage drive on the 192 -- since you'd have to change your reference level to accomodate the higher output from the 2".

Have you even asked anyone what the levels on Steve's tape looked like?

Mixerman specifically said you need to use drums to recreate the "problem".

Talk about "hedging".

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 12:05:37 PM
So true Rail.

The 3 tracks are very close. I appauld the team for doing a great job of matching.

My guess, #10 Tape, 11#Radar, #12 Could be PT or tape..(Folks, they are close)

I would bet Steve did not let his meters stay in the red...maybe +3 to a brief +5..but no tape saturation was noticed (unless they all came from the tape originally)  Twisted Evil
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 27, 2005, 12:32:29 PM
The saturation push is still a valid point.  It seems a bit out of character for people to keep trying to make this test seem definitive.  It isn't.  It can't be.  There are too many factors in the world of music and engineering to make this many variables a definitive test unless it is taken as an average of a lot of tests with different material and at different "hit" levels.

Another "variable" is the fact that an engineer listens back to a track hundreds of times, building his subconscious knowledge of many of the track's nuances.   The level of familiarity that the engineer has *at that moment* will never be the same, and then he prints it to PT through a 192.  He built all of those sounds with judicious mic placement, etc. Of course he is going to hear a difference.  I don't want to listen to the track a hundred times on 2" to have that same level of familiarity, so I will just believe him.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 27, 2005, 01:14:11 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 09:05

So true Rail.

The 3 tracks are very close. I appauld the team for doing a great job of matching.

My guess, #10 Tape, 11#Radar, #12 Could be PT or tape..(Folks, they are close)

I would bet Steve did not let his meters stay in the red...maybe +3 to a brief +5..but no tape saturation was noticed (unless they all came from the tape originally)  Twisted Evil


They did all come from tape originally.  That was the point of the test; to see if Pro Tools and Radar could accurately reproduce the sound of the analog tape, or whether it had a severe loss in the low end that made it unacceptable and, at the same time, easily recognizable.  So the bloom should still remain if it existed on the 2 inch in the first place.

I agree that this was a hard piece of music for me, personally, to analyze.  I would have preferred a big, fat, stupid drum beat, with lots of low end and a feeling of air moving in the room.  This style of drumming (is that a double kick?) doesn't really get that for me.  But the fact is that it was the analog guys who chose the program material.  Maybe we would have heard "the problem", given different material.

What do you think?

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 01:19:46 PM
This thread has been so long..I missed many of the details..in the case of transparency, my vote goes to #11..#11 seems to have the most "intactness". It is slightly "different" than the 10/12.

So vote 11 for the source. (or it is the most "off")

But what is it "intact" to?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 01:39:20 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 08:47

I spoke to Fletcher about this...I just want to bring it up. Those of us that work with both the 2"/console platforms and PT's have noticed the "bass deal" more than once.

We run the piss out of the 2" machines, often way in the red during printing and they always roll off the upper fq a shade and give a "beefier tone" when you are close to tape saturation. This is old assed knowledge. The bottom "blooms" on tape when pushed.

If this test was done with the 2" running conservative levels, the "bloom affect" simply will not show itself as it will during "real world printing".

Again, we run the 'fuck' out of our 2 inch machines..especially on guitars..for that "tape tone". Everyone here that uses 2" knows that we lay the meters over... against the wall. Sometimes they STAY over there..and it will affect "tone".

Both in the console and in the tape itself.

There you go..



I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

The level to tape has nothing to do how hard you hit that machine unless of course you are already at a + 15 over 185 alignment. (for example)

It's "funny" that this comes up now as I brought this very same issue up before the test and Fletcher called my posting bullshit ramblings, maybe not those exact words, but it was an odd response to what I felt important.

Of course a 250nwb alignment pinned will have the same tape saturation on a 320 nwb alignment at 0, providing the former isn't endless level into tape compression.  This doesn't even take into account meter ballistics.

I said this before - digital has an absolute 0 analog does not.

Conversely, if someone gave you a 24/96 digital file at -24 and asked you to make a 1/2" copy of it, are you going to print the 1/2" at -7 peaks or are you going to align the machines to maximize the analog format?

But to come out and say it's because the meters didn't pin, when you have no idea of the alignment, is odd to me, anyway.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 01:44:44 PM
danickstr wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 09:32

The saturation push is still a valid point.  It seems a bit out of character for people to keep trying to make this test seem definitive.  It isn't.  It can't be.  There are too many factors in the world of music and engineering to make this many variables a definitive test unless it is taken as an average of a lot of tests with different material and at different "hit" levels.

Another "variable" is the fact that an engineer listens back to a track hundreds of times, building his subconscious knowledge of many of the track's nuances.   The level of familiarity that the engineer has *at that moment* will never be the same, and then he prints it to PT through a 192.  He built all of those sounds with judicious mic placement, etc. Of course he is going to hear a difference.  I don't want to listen to the track a hundred times on 2" to have that same level of familiarity, so I will just believe him.


What does this have to do with severe loss of bottom end?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 01:48:37 PM
Quote:

But to come out and say it's becasuse the meters didn't pin, when you have no idea of the alignment, is odd to me, anyway.



One should assume the machine was aligned properly anyway..but..I made the statement prior to knowing all of the files came from the analogue source tape.

I believe from experience, if one wants to see if the formats sound different..hence loss of bass on digital, one should look at the "boost of bass" in analogue..due to said compression artifacts. Digital has no choice but to "track" the source.

Quote:

What does this have to do with severe loss of bottom end?


If one is familar with this, (analogue bottom boost) then tracking to the digital domain would sound "thinner" in comparison.

Pehaps the entire scope of this is not the "loss of bottom" of digital..but the gain of bottom in analogue. Certainly this is experienced often.

A fair test would be to simply transfer a file (don't matter which) to the different formats and try different levels in analogue tape, until the bass boost occurs, know that level (and why it is happening) and note it.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 01:55:08 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 10:48

Quote:

But to come out and say it's becasuse the meters didn't pin, when you have no idea of the alignment, is odd to me, anyway.



One should assume the machine was aligned properly anyway..but..I made the statement prior to knowing all of the files came from the analogue source tape.

I believe from experience, if one wants to see if the formats sound different..hence loss of bass on digital, one should look at the "boost of bass" in analogue..due to said compression artifacts.

If one is familar with this, tracking to the digital domain would sound "thinner" in comparison.


OK - got it now.

The test was only about having a 2" analog tape and transferring to pro tools via the 192 interface and the claim that there was a severe loss of bottom end on the pro tools transfer and not on RADAR.

The Albini 2" was transferred to the Pro Tools rig and RADAR straight patch from 2" to each machine (at a time)

What was interesting about this test is that the monitor mix on the console done via the 2", stayed static and the patch was changed to Pro Tools and RADAR.

For ANY formats so different to sound so close via the exact same fader levels is the biggest lesson I have learned from this.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 02:01:36 PM
I must say...they are close. Most (IME) of the entire argument..is simply semantics. Analogue certainly has the ability to "fatten up" when pushed and digital simply does not do this. Digital..however will track a good analogue production.

Example:

The CD's I have made from vinyl simply KILL the CD's that are from the same works...but ran through the ole' meat grinder.

Want Hamburger?...or do you want Steak!

I am sure everyone has seen this by now...

http://www.festivalstudios.com/Protools.html
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 02:07:53 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 11:01

I must say...they are close. Most (IME) of the entire argument..is simply semantics. Analogue certainly has the ability to "fatten up" when pushed and digital simply does not do this. Digital..however will track a good analogue production.



But in this test, the analog machine was fat or whatever Albini wanted it to be.  The analog "bloom" was already recorded.

This test was only about if the 192 could capture the fatness or "bloom" or not.  Was the bottom end severely cut off of the analog tape when going to the 192?  Is the bottom octave there on all 3 files?  Was the "bloom" off the rose?

If it captured the 2" machine is all that mattered.

Now people are having to guess which one is the 2".

It started as find the 2" in the 9 files.

Now it's find the Pro Tools in the 3 files and there is still no clear consensus.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 02:10:33 PM
...Got it...

As said, we are listening to the converter... really. The platforms are not destroying anything here.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 03:06:56 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 08:47

I spoke to Fletcher about this...I just want to bring it up. Those of us that work with both the 2"/console platforms and PT's have noticed the "bass deal" more than once.

We run the piss out of the 2" machines, often way in the red during printing and they always roll off the upper fq a shade and give a "beefier tone" when you are close to tape saturation. This is old assed knowledge. The bottom "blooms" on tape when pushed.

If this test was done with the 2" running conservative levels, the "bloom affect" simply will not show itself as it will during "real world printing".

Again, we run the 'fuck' out of our 2 inch machines..especially on guitars..for that "tape tone". Everyone here that uses 2" knows that we lay the meters over... against the wall. Sometimes they STAY over there..and it will affect "tone".

Both in the console and in the tape itself.

There you go..



One more observation regarding this post.

You are assuming that every engineer using analog tape is pinning the meters during guitar overdubs?

I know in my engineering lifetime - and I am not close to the best engineers out there - that has never been my way of working.

As a producer I have been blessed to be able to hire a large number of great engineers over the years.  I have never noticed that to be the norm - the running the fuck out of the 2" tape.

But again, maybe some align the machine for the max level they believe the tape will take in order to reproduce the sound they capture when recording.

But the blanket statement that every one is pinning the meters all the time is a no go to me.

Are we then saying that those who now claim they don't use tape anymore because the RADAR sounds so close are then pinning the digital meters for that bloom?

That's silly.  I have done 2 long projects on RADAR and can tell you that would not sound very good at all.

All of this is completely missing the point of the test.

Michael Wagener said early on in another forum that people record differently to analog than they do in digital to maximise the formats.

if people are recording in RADAR just like to describe on analog, I for one, would love to hear that.

And by the way, the most levels I ever see hitting an analog console are those from Pro Tools when people record everything at the top of the gain structure.  So it isn't like the 192 can't hit the console a lot harder than a 2" pinned.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 03:11:20 PM
Quote:

You are assuming that every engineer using analog tape is pinning the meters during guitar overdubs?



nope...but a lot of FAMOUS producers insist on it.

Every session is different. Afterall..arn't we suppose to serve the client?..even if the producers are assholes?

I wish I could do things "my way" but in this world, this is not always the case.

I think pinning the meters does a disservice to the client..but what do I know..If I don't allow it, somebody else will.

Quote:

And by the way, the most levels I ever see hitting an analog console are those from Pro Tools when people record everything at the top of the gain structure. So it isn't like the 192 can't hit the console a lot harder than a 2" pinned


I've seen that myself. Producers folly and clown actions of course...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 03:22:40 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 12:11

Quote:

You are assuming that every engineer using analog tape is pinning the meters during guitar overdubs?



nope...but a lot of FAMOUS producers insist on it.

Every session is different. Afterall..arn't we suppose to serve the client?..even if the producers are assholes?

I wish I could do things "my way" but in this world, this is not always the case.

I think pinning the meters does a disservice to the client..but what do I know..If I don't allow it, somebody else will.

Quote:

And by the way, the most levels I ever see hitting an analog console are those from Pro Tools when people record everything at the top of the gain structure. So it isn't like the 192 can't hit the console a lot harder than a 2" pinned


I've seen that myself. Producers folly and clown actions of course...



But again, the original post was a generality.

Of course people work in different ways.

What do you mean by FAMOUS producers?


This has nothing to do with "my way".  These are just observations.  As many here, I've been around the block a few times.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 27, 2005, 03:36:56 PM
I have seen many engineers pin the needles.  I never loved the sound of that.  One thing is for sure, once the needle pinns and stays there, you have no idea what you're sending to tape, and you won't know if you're cool until it plays back.

Why is it that nobody mentions print through when advocating extremely hot levels to analog?  I'm not so sure that's a great thing.  If the producer wants to print hot, i'm going to give him what he wants, but I wouldn't go about it that way on purpose.  I get asked about hot levels to digital more than I ever did with analog.  Too many still buy into the print hot and use all the bits mentality.  I like to have a good analog meter in the signal path somewhere, so I know whats going on.

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 03:39:25 PM
Randy...my last post was loaded with sarcasm. Sorry you didn't see it.   Very Happy

I have earned the ability to call the shots on most if not all the sessions I am involved with these days..so actually, we both are in agreement about platforms, the usage and what sounds best.  Razz

In mastering..I absolutely have limits I abide by and pass work off if the client wants to go beyond them..as it is my choice.  Cool

This is not about me nor you..so since we agree, lets get back to our regularly scheduled program..shall we? Twisted Evil
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 03:43:49 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 12:36

I have seen many engineers pin the needles.  I never loved the sound of that.  One thing is for sure, once the needle pinns and stays there, you have no idea what you're sending to tape, and you won't know if you're cool until it plays back.

Why is it that nobody mentions print through when advocating extremely hot levels to analog?  I'm not so sure that's a great thing.  If the producer wants to print hot, i'm going to give him what he wants, but I wouldn't go about it that way on purpose.  I get asked about hot levels to digital more than I ever did with analog.  Too many still buy into the print hot and use all the bits mentality.  I like to have a good analog meter in the signal path somewhere, so I know whats going on.

Steve


Print through has improved as tape formulations have "improved" (many still love 456)

I agree once the meter is pinned, how much over is a mystery.

As said before, pinning the meters at a + 6 alignment is going to sound different than with a +9 so there really is no standard.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 04:11:41 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 12:39

Randy...my last post was loaded with sarcasm. Sorry you didn't see it.   Very Happy

I have earned the ability to call the shots on most if not all the sessions I am involved with these days..so actually, we both are in agreement about platforms, the usage and what sounds best.  Razz

In mastering..I absolutely have limits I abide by and pass work off if the client wants to go beyond them..as it is my choice.  Cool

This is not about me nor you..so since we agree, lets get back to our regularly scheduled program..shall we? Twisted Evil


I agree!  

All I am attempting to do is keep the focus on the test, the reason for the test, what people have said about the test.

If someone can come in and say "here's why this test wasn't valid" - all good.  But there better be reasons that hold up under scrutiny.

But the reality remains -

This was a killer 2" 16 track format.

The engineer of the 2" is someone everyone can and does respect or SHOULD unless they are a dumb ass.

Not one person at the test claimed the 2" was wimpy sounding.  Not even close.

Some at the test said they could hear, when aware of the source, a change in the bottom end.  That would then show the tape played the bottom end.

Someone else claimed they could hear a night and day difference in the Neundo/Lavry files between PT and RADAR - but didn't claim one was better or that they knew what was what.  So there can't be a claim that the files didn't transfer the console as the source in full range.

So what on earth can anyone find in the process that was flawed?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 05:00:43 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 10:14

Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 09:05

So true Rail.

The 3 tracks are very close. I appauld the team for doing a great job of matching.

My guess, #10 Tape, 11#Radar, #12 Could be PT or tape..(Folks, they are close)

I would bet Steve did not let his meters stay in the red...maybe +3 to a brief +5..but no tape saturation was noticed (unless they all came from the tape originally)  Twisted Evil


They did all come from tape originally.  That was the point of the test; to see if Pro Tools and Radar could accurately reproduce the sound of the analog tape, or whether it had a severe loss in the low end that made it unacceptable and, at the same time, easily recognizable.  So the bloom should still remain if it existed on the 2 inch in the first place.

I agree that this was a hard piece of music for me, personally, to analyze.  I would have preferred a big, fat, stupid drum beat, with lots of low end and a feeling of air moving in the room.  This style of drumming (is that a double kick?) doesn't really get that for me.  But the fact is that it was the analog guys who chose the program material.  Maybe we would have heard "the problem", given different material.

What do you think?

Steve




Mixerman requested a test that Slipperman had requested and that was to take a full multi track tape and transfer it to PT and RADAR.

There was talk before the test of the power supply not being able to handle a ton of energy and that could be the problem.

So a 16 track headstack and a full energy recording was brought in as the static source.

The mastering engineers here have said there is plenty of bottom end on these files even stuff down in the 30 range.

The kick drum(s) don't sound limited or compressed and seem to have very good dynamic range.

The analog guys felt they had the source to prove or disprove their point.

If the 192 was having a severe bottom end loss, why wouldn't these files show that?

Shouldn't a solo paino show that as well?  

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 05:02:08 PM
Well...here is the deal..even though we both have already gone over it.

If you get an engineer that is very used to 2"..be it 16 or 24..(or even those 32's that are still out there) and works in the analogue domain.and is very used to his or her chain,..and we are talking, top to bottom..console, mic pres, outboards and all..and they track in the digital domain, basically as they were used to..and no overs..and hopefully no really hot levels against the zero, I do believe that this person would immediately (especially if it were in the same studio)...immediately "sense" a "change" in sonics.

I did in the early 80's. the converters then SUCKED!

This could be a number of things;

Levels on digital not changing the frequency spectrum the way analogue tape machines "can".

Digitalis notorious lack of "smoothing over" sharp transients.

The lack of the so called "tape bloom", attributed to saturation and tape compression.

The "soul" of the analogue console.."missing" in action.

Now..it is very fair to say..Digital done right- can have and will have Mighty fine sonics.

Every engineer I know and have worked with will clearly agree that analogue and the digital domain have different "flavors" or flat out.."Sound different, act different".

The coolest quality of digital is it will track the analogue domain very close. The analog cannot track the digital in the same way. Analogue..with its various idiosyncrasies, still is and will be (when properly used) a very viable format..especially for tracking.

So..if you feed an analogue source, through righteous converters to the digital domain..(namely 2mixes)..all or damn near all of the analogue flavor should remain intact. If it does not..the converters are usually at fault.

All this above..is considering you have an engineering staff that knows  what the hell is going on and can make allowances for the technical side. (not abusing or using the systems outside of their performance envelopes)

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 05:07:27 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 14:02

Well...here is the deal..even though we both have already gone over it.

If you get an engineer that is very used to 2"..be it 16 or 24..(or even those 32's that are still out there) and works in the analogue domain.and is very used to his or her chain,..and we are talking, top to bottom..console, mic pres, outboards and all..and they track in the digital domain, basically as they were used to..and no overs..and hopefully no really hot levels against the zero, I do believe that this person would immediately (especially if it were in the same studio)...immediately "sense" a "change" in sonics.

This could be a number of things;

Levels on digital not changing the frequency spectrum the way analogue tape machines "can".

Digitalis notorious lack of "smoothing over" sharp transients.

The lack of the so called "tape bloom", attributed to saturation and tape compression.

The "soul" of the analogue console.."missing" in action.

Now..it is very fair to say..Digital done right- can have and will have Mighty fine sonics.

Every engineer I know and have worked with will clearly agree that analogue and the digital domain have different "flavors" or flat out.."Sound different, act different".

The coolest quality of digital is it will track the analogue domain very close. The analog cannot track the digital in the same way. Analogue..with its various idiosyncrasies, still is and will be (when properly used) a very viable format..especially for tracking.

So..if you feed an analogue source, through righteous converters to the digital domain..(namely 2mixes)..all or damn near all of the analogue flavor should remain intact. If it does not..the converters are usually at fault.

All this above..is considering you have an engineering staff that knows  what the hell is going on and can make allowances for the technical side. (not abusing or using the systems outside of their performance envelopes)




I agree with all of this and still prefer analog.

But in terms of this test - where all the bloom already was recorded on the 2" - do YOU hear the severe bottom end loss going into the 192 and if not the above is your reason????

I am only talking about THIS transfer from 2" to Pro Tools.

Then you would also agree that the Lavry/Nuendo combo should have captured the analog 2 mix output of the console?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 27, 2005, 05:20:53 PM
level wrote:

Quote:

Well...here is the deal..even though we both have already gone over it.

If you get an engineer that is very used to 2"..be it 16 or 24..(or even those 32's that are still out there) and works in the analogue domain.and is very used to his or her chain,..and we are talking, top to bottom..console, mic pres, outboards and all..and they track in the digital domain, basically as they were used to..and no overs..and hopefully no really hot levels against the zero, I do believe that this person would immediately (especially if it were in the same studio)...immediately "sense" a "change" in sonics.

I did in the early 80's. the converters then SUCKED!

This could be a number of things;

Levels on digital not changing the frequency spectrum the way analogue tape machines "can".

Digitalis notorious lack of "smoothing over" sharp transients.

The lack of the so called "tape bloom", attributed to saturation and tape compression.

The "soul" of the analogue console.."missing" in action.

Now..it is very fair to say..Digital done right- can have and will have Mighty fine sonics.

Every engineer I know and have worked with will clearly agree that analogue and the digital domain have different "flavors" or flat out.."Sound different, act different".

The coolest quality of digital is it will track the analogue domain very close. The analog cannot track the digital in the same way. Analogue..with its various idiosyncrasies, still is and will be (when properly used) a very viable format..especially for tracking.

So..if you feed an analogue source, through righteous converters to the digital domain..(namely 2mixes)..all or damn near all of the analogue flavor should remain intact. If it does not..the converters are usually at fault.

All this above..is considering you have an engineering staff that knows what the hell is going on and can make allowances for the technical side. (not abusing or using the systems outside of their performance envelopes)




So, did you hear a sever loss of "bloom affect" in these files or not? Confused  Rolling Eyes

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 27, 2005, 05:23:37 PM
Randy, your always one step ahead of me. Laughing  Laughing
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 05:29:11 PM
Of course I did not..I do hear some added transparency, in 11 though.

It is either "added transparency" or it is 10/12 has a shade less highs.

This would depend on which one was the actual source..which in this case is our only "reference"
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 05:31:03 PM
This test was not about recording analog or digital.

This test was as simple as it gets.

Can you take a 2" tape - recorded by a person who said he was an "analog engineer"- and transfer that audio into Pro Tools via the 192 and not have a severe loss of bottom end?

RADAR was also added as the claim was that RADAR did not suffer this same fate.

There is nothing deeper to this test.

One of these 3 files either has a severe loss of bottom end or it doesn't.

It's a tranfer test. That's it!

Now there are some people thinking something must have gone wrong for the transfer to have not shown severe bottom end loss on the 192.  That's a bit backwards.




Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 05:32:57 PM
Back on page 19..I said..

Quote:

The 3 tracks are very close. I appauld the team for doing a great job of matching.



..and in this..I mean Levels.

So..there is your answer. It is..NO!!!

Now...when do we get to see what is what?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 05:38:51 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 14:32

Back on page 19..I said..

Quote:

The 3 tracks are very close. I appauld the team for doing a great job of matching.



..and in this..I mean Levels.

So..there is your answer. It is..NO!!!


I got cornfused by the analog vs digital recording post.  I had asked how THIS test could have been flawed.

The great thing is they didn't match levels on the console via mixing.

All versions used the same fader level and pan settings as the rough mix on the 2".

So 2" went in to pro tools, pro tools then patched back into the console and played back with all the same level and pan.  NO touch ups to the mix.  The mix stayed static.

Same with RADAR.

No faders were changed in the making of this test.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 05:40:35 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 14:29

Of course I did not..I do hear some added transparency, in 11 though.

It is either "added transparency" or it is 10/12 has a shade less highs.

This would depend on which one was the actual source..which in this case is our only "reference"


We'll know Wed.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 27, 2005, 06:31:34 PM
Level, please read the thread before replying - we have two pages of totally off-topic banter now because you assumed the thread was something it was not.

Can we focus on what the thread is about, please?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 27, 2005, 09:19:19 PM
The files do not lack bottom end. They are different tho,, I'll have more thoughts on this as I go. I just got the files.

BTW, I don't see what Bill said that isn't relevant. Especially when one considers the banter that has gone on in general, thus far.

FWIW, I've read every word of this and all other related threads. This one is called, "The Chicago Test results"

 What, Mr. Blackwell, would you like to talk about? There are any number of topics that fall under this title that are all relevant....

Man, If you want folks to just post :

YES, or NO or Maybe, someone should have told us that.

Ongoing, private pissing matches is what is NOT relevant here man..

Ya know,, I'm glad I feel I can say what ever I want and stand behind every fucking word. It feels great.

OK kid's,,Back on "Topic" what ever that means...

Ivan....................
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 27, 2005, 09:26:03 PM
ivan40 wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 18:19

The files do not lack bottom end. They are different tho,, I'll have more thoughts on this as I go. I just got the files.

Ivan....................


And THAT was the entire purpose of the test.

Did the 192 suffer from severe bottom end loss or not?




Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 09:32:35 PM
IIRC (and have proof) it was Fletcher himself who not only invited me to post this very topic on HIS forum but I don't see the relevance in publicly scolding me within these conversations.

Brad..since I am on Fletchers turf here, by his invitation, do you feel huge now by scolding me publicly?

Be professional please.

You've already banned me from your forum..are you going to tell Fletcher to ban me from his also?

And..I remember, you always want proof. With Fletchers permission, I would be happy to post not only my private question to him but I will be more than pleased to post his response to me.

Brad, I went "private" on this topic to avoid YOU. You simply had to dig your claws into me again.

Please get off my ass.

Please do not delete this post either.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 27, 2005, 09:48:24 PM
Bill, it's nothing personal - it's basic forum etiquette to actually read what the thread is about before replying.

ivan40, it's not a 'private pissing match' - I have no time to waste on such matters - as i stated above it's a matter of actually reading the thread instead of assuming you know what it's about.

When did everyone get such thin skin when someone suggests we actually keep the discussion on topic?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Level on November 27, 2005, 09:52:14 PM
On page 20 I said,

Quote:

This is not about me nor you..so since we agree, lets get back to our regularly scheduled program..shall we?  


Hummm...Oh well.

One would think when they are approaching 50 years old, this bullshit would finally come to a close and some respect should be due.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 27, 2005, 10:07:33 PM
Bill and Ivan,

Once again,


this test is not............................. '


about analog versus digital,



it is about weather or not.......................



a 2" transferred to protools...................



severely loses bass because of the digi192.



Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 28, 2005, 10:20:24 AM
Ron Steele wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 22:07

Bill and Ivan,

Once again,


this test is not............................. '


about analog versus digital,



it is about weather or not.......................



a 2" transferred to protools...................



severely loses bass because of the digi192.



Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes



Right,, and I had a long talk with my buddy the other day about Volkswagon Engine rebuilds, and it wasn't about Car's... verses Horses.... ? sure it was..


So here ya go Ron,, THE FILES DON'T LACK BOTTOM END!!  ,,,

So, um,, how'bout them Lions?? Oh,,, all the snow melted up here, strange, it was 12 Degrees three days ago.

Man,, a guy was killed by a Tomato a couple days ago,, driving down the road! That would suck. Now, if we could find out whether he was listening to CD,or Cassette when he Hit, we could talk about digital, verses Analog then,,{?}  Maybe,,,?  ...Please??? I like to talk about that....;-}
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 28, 2005, 12:36:05 PM
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 18:32

IIRC (and have proof) it was Fletcher himself who not only invited me to post this very topic on HIS forum...


So Fletcher personally pm'ed you and asked you to post on this topic to lend support to his point of view?  Now that's interesting.

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 01:59:36 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 09:36

Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 18:32

IIRC (and have proof) it was Fletcher himself who not only invited me to post this very topic on HIS forum...


So Fletcher personally pm'ed you and asked you to post on this topic to lend support to his point of view?  Now that's interesting.

Steve



It's unlikely Fletcher asked someone to post about analog VS digital recording, tape bloom, etc., based on a test of a transfer.

That would be like complaining about a mastering job because the mastering engineer didn't understand the concept of pinning the meters on the guitars on the multi track.

It either sounds good or it doesn't, once you get into the transfer stage.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 28, 2005, 02:38:17 PM
RKrizman wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 12:46



If the results don't exist outside of the room, then everybody's time is being wasted.  

-R


This is where you’re mistaken.

When an artist or a band have been listening to, grooving on, and emotionally responding to tracks for days, especially when those tracks are “dead on” in their sonic vision, the performers become emotionally attached to that response. It’s kind of like a drug. We’ve all been there. Smiling ear to ear that we’ve nailed it. Elation abounds. The artist is happy. I’m happy. The mooks are even happy. Certainly, anyone that has spent a minute recording knows and understands this excitement.

IF I as a recordist, make a technical decision—and transferring to another medium IS a technical decision—then I am risking the destruction of that emotional response. If the band or the artist loses that emotional response, I risk losing the performances I need. I risk bland uninspired vocals; anemic guitar parts. I risk a complete focus shift from, “This is great! Let’s keep going!” to “I hate my life.”

When it goes to “I hate my life,” I’m in damage control mode, in which I must compensate for a readily identifiable change in the emotional response to the music, as it relates to the FIRST person that must emotionally respond—the performers.

The fact is, I can compensate for most sonic changes. I can deal with a loss of low-end. It’s not the end of the world. Even if I’m not totally happy with those compensations—for knowing what I once had—I can make a reasonable argument that 99.99% of the people in the world would be oblivious. What I can’t compensate for is the annihilation of a performer’s excitement, or belief in the product that he, she, or we are making.

Now, I haven’t listened to these files yet. I’m going to be evaluating them some time in the next 36 hours, but I can already tell you there’s a problem. The fact of the matter is, Steve Albini and Fletcher heard the loss of low end in the room. Steve called it “striking.” Fletcher called it “palpable.” Quite obviously, what these two heard in the room didn’t translate to the stereo file. I can tell you THAT without even hearing the files based purely on the fact that when I do these sorts of transfers to HD, everyone in the room can hear it, and it translates readily down to 16/44.1.

One of the reasons I asked for the 96k transfer, was to show just how inaccurate and weird 96k is. People are beginning to use this sampling rate, and frankly, I think 48k is far more accurate on every device I’ve ever used. Which makes me wonder, is the fact that these stereo files were printed at 96k somehow masking the effect? I’ve had positive experience with the Lavry Blue converters, so I don’t really think that was the problem. But make no mistake about it. If you guys can’t hear plainly and obviously the loss of low end in these stereo files, there WAS a problem. Remember, two people have stated that there was clearly a loss of low-end in the room that they can no longer hear in the stereo file. That puts into question the validity of the stereo file.

If you would like to consider the opinions of the other (18?) people in the room, that’s fine. But I might point out that bias is a two way street, and such things as experience, knowledge, and a verifiable track record should probably have some sort of weight when compared to a random smattering of local “experts” whose names don’t even appear on the radar.

Surely, if you believe that these files are irrefutable proof, I have been proven wrong. Even IF, upon listening, I can tell you with absolute certainty which file is which; clearly, as it stands, the “maid” can’t hear the difference. But can we really take these files as irrefutable proof? Rick, Randy and Rail seem to think so. But I might point you all to these statements by Steve Albini:

“The "stored" mixes played back from Nuendo after everything was "printed" showed much less difference between storage media than the initial playbacks did. Even distinctions beteween different digital systems and clocking methods which were apparent to everyone in the room seemed to be much harder to discern from the "printed" versions. I realize this mitigates somewhat anyone's concern for "the low-end problem," but I still feel it is an unfortunate reality.”

What he heard didn’t translate. Therefore, we can’t put any stock in those files. Like I said, even if I can easily pick them out, this is not the level of the problem that I’ve discussed here.

I’m doing a session December in which I’ll be working analog and then switching to digital. I have a full blown HD in the room. I am inviting anyone that is in LA to come down for a morning and take a listen. A casual listen to show to anyone that is interested precisely what happens in this sort of transfer. In my phone conversation with Randy, he felt the program material was highly inappropriate for the test that was done. He felt that we should be dealing purely with bass and drums. Since it’s not apparent in these files, I would say I have to agree.

I would love for Rail, Rick and Randy to come, but they don’t seem interested in hearing what I and others hear on a regular basis. I don’t know why Rail wouldn’t want to come. Perhaps he could show me that I’m doing something wrong. That would be great!

Regardless, I will schedule a more precise and scientific test after the casual December listen. I have PMs (and some emails) from many of you here in LA, and I’ll send out invitations in the next week or two.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 28, 2005, 02:49:36 PM
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 14:38

Remember, two people have stated that there was clearly a loss of low-end in the room that they can no longer hear in the stereo file. That puts into question the validity of the stereo file.





WHOA.  Hold your horses.  There is at least one other explanation -- it could be that Steve & Fletcher's bias made it impossible for either of them not to hear a difference, even if one didn't exist.  Remember, this wasn't a blind test, at least not at the point you're talking about.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 02:58:17 PM
Mixerman,

When we spoke on the phone, it was 11:00 at night and I had not yet cranked the files to hear them outside of whisper level at that point.  I told you that.

What I said was this was well mixed and tight and is not like listening to bass and drums when doing edits.  I NEVER said it was inappropriate.

However, I did say that the kick drum(s) had a lot of dynamics in them.  

It was you who suggested using slipperman's idea of a full band recording in this test.

You are also picking a choosing what other people said about the test.

Mr Albini also said:

<<I heard/reacted to a different quality in the low end. I don't know if I would have been able to quantify it as "loss," but that's as close as any descriptor would get. The low end sounded clearer/thinner/pick your adjective on the ProTools playbacks. I have avoided speaking about the Radar playback because I didn't give it my full attention, and I don't think I should say anything about it.>>

To claim the 24/96 file is the problem is odd.  And that's why you suggested it?

OK then.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 28, 2005, 03:11:47 PM
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 14:38

RKrizman wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 12:46



If the results don't exist outside of the room, then everybody's time is being wasted.  

-R


One of the reasons I asked for the 96k transfer, was to show just how inaccurate and weird 96k is. People are beginning to use this sampling rate, and frankly, I think 48k is far more accurate on every device I?ve ever used. Which makes me wonder, is the fact that these stereo files were printed at 96k somehow masking the effect?

Surely, if you believe that these files are irrefutable proof, I have been proven wrong. Even IF, upon listening, I can tell you with absolute certainty which file is which; clearly, as it stands, the ?maid? can?t hear the difference. But can we really take these files as irrefutable proof? Rick, Randy and Rail seem to think so. But I might point you all to these statements by Steve Albini:




Hey, don't be misquoting me about "irrefutable proof".  I listened and made my guesses--why don't you save all this until you do the same.  Who knows, the thing you're hearing may be as plain as day to you.

I can't speak for what everyone else thinks this proves, but I think it's a very fair demonstration.

As for your demonstration, I'm in.  But I won't be there.  I do look forward to hearing a CD of the results.  

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 03:18:49 PM
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 12:11

Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 14:38

RKrizman wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 12:46



If the results don't exist outside of the room, then everybody's time is being wasted.  

-R


One of the reasons I asked for the 96k transfer, was to show just how inaccurate and weird 96k is. People are beginning to use this sampling rate, and frankly, I think 48k is far more accurate on every device I?ve ever used. Which makes me wonder, is the fact that these stereo files were printed at 96k somehow masking the effect?

Surely, if you believe that these files are irrefutable proof, I have been proven wrong. Even IF, upon listening, I can tell you with absolute certainty which file is which; clearly, as it stands, the ?maid? can?t hear the difference. But can we really take these files as irrefutable proof? Rick, Randy and Rail seem to think so. But I might point you all to these statements by Steve Albini:




Hey, don't be misquoting me about "irrefutable proof".  I listened and made my guesses--why don't you save all this until you do the same.  Who knows, the thing you're hearing may be as plain as day to you.

I can't speak for what everyone else thinks this proves, but I think it's a very fair demonstration.

As for your demonstration, I'm in.  But I won't be there.  I do look forward to hearing a CD of the results.  

-R



How are these files less "proof" than undocumented claims?  These files are the ONLY documents to date.

No different "proof" than 2 engineers mixing the same song.  It doesn't matter what it sounded like in thr control room - It's about what do these mixes sound like to the band when they listen where ever they decide to listen to the 2 mixes side by side?

Listen to the files.  Find the file with the severe bottom end loss.  

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: hargerst on November 28, 2005, 03:20:36 PM
The problem I have is that I respect all the people that are commenting on this "problem".  But it sounds like the Chicago tests may not have been up to the task of re-creating the problem Mixerman described - FOR WHATEVER REASONS. Obviously, Mixerman believes the differences should be quite audible, while the Chicago tests did not reveal any differences of the scope Mixerman suggests.

The most obvious answer is for Mixerman to personally set up conditions to where he feels the difference is obvious, and have others see if they hear the same thing, then delve into possible reasons for the difference, either technical or physcological.

IS there a condition that actually exists as Mixerman describes? He has pretty damn good ears and I'm pretty sure it does exists.  Did that condition appear during the controlled Chicago test?  I don't think so.  So, does that mean Mixerman's description of a possible problem is useless?  I don't think so.  It means (to me, anyway) that Mixerman should duplicate the problem, then have others see if they can hear it and figure out what's causing it.

Forget the "Is, too - is not" crap and get Mixerman to say, "Listen, there it is!".  Then, go from there.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 28, 2005, 03:23:52 PM
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 14:38

I would love for Rail, Rick and Randy to come, but they don?t seem interested in hearing what I and others hear on a regular basis. I don?t know why Rail wouldn?t want to come. Perhaps he could show me that I?m doing something wrong. That would be great!



I don't have to go anywhere else to hear transfers from 2" to Protools.  I don't have any problems at my studio, but I have no idea why not, so I'd be no help to you.  (And I don't even use 96 k to mask the low end problems!)  As for Rail, maybe you should hire him.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 03:24:32 PM
hargerst wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 12:20

The problem I have is that I respect all the people that are commenting on this "problem".  But it sounds like the Chicago tests may not have been up to the task of re-creating the problem Mixerman described - FOR WHATEVER REASONS. Obviously, Mixerman believes the differences should be quite audible, while the Chicago tests did not reveal any differences of the scope Mixerman suggests.

The most obvious answer is for Mixerman to personally set up conditions to where he feels the difference is obvious, and have others see if they hear the same thing, then delve into possible reasons for the difference, either technical or physcological.

IS there a condition that actually exists as Mixerman describes? He has pretty damn good ears and I'm pretty sure it does exists.  Did that condition appear during the controlled Chicago test?  I don't think so.  So, does that mean Mixerman's description of a possible problem is useless?  I don't think so.  It means (to me, anyway) that Mixerman should duplicate the problem, then have others see if they can hear it and figure out what's causing it.

Forget the "Is, too - is not" crap and get Mixerman to say, "Listen, there it is!".  Then, go from there.



Harvey,

I agree.  BUT if Mixerman's test doesn't include more than "I heard it you are deaf" or "It wasn't there you moron" what good is it?

I believe we learned about bias and knowing the source pretty well from the Chicago test.

What is the document?  A CD?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 28, 2005, 03:29:36 PM
hargerst wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:20

  It means (to me, anyway) that Mixerman should duplicate the problem, then have others see if they can hear it and figure out what's causing it.

Forget the "Is, too - is not" crap and get Mixerman to say, "Listen, there it is!".  Then, go from there.


Right on Harvey.  I've been requesting that for years now.

Let's hear it.  Create the problem, lay it down to CD and put it out there.  I don't understand why this hasn't already happened.

-R

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 03:36:55 PM
I have to say (again) that this test was discussed to death before it was done.

With all parameters set and agreed on Mixerman was flaunting that everyone will hear the severe bottom end loss.

Now that the test, attended by people on both sides of the issue, is done and the files out there for everyone to hear..

Some want to assume this test was flawed?  Because the equipment worked?

Wow!

Let me add that although this test is done and the files do NOT show any severe bottom end loss and although there is plenty of bottom on all 3 files that Mixerman still doesn't believe this test.  This is not like all 3 files had the bottom chopped off via the Lavry.

What reason is there to believe he would agree with any other test unless it supported his claim?


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 28, 2005, 03:43:29 PM
Mixerman, the entire basis of these tests were to substantiate or negate the claims that you have made about the loss of low end.

As Steve put it in the earlier threads: "The original question was: Is the transfer losing bass relative to the original master? I say we listen to the transfer and the master and decide...I think we ought to answer the original question first."  AND  "I say we play the tape, play the PT and see if there is a consensus. If not, we can make CDs of it or what-have-you. I think we'll know pretty quickly if there is a problem of the magnitude that has been described."

Fletcher clearly knew that this was the purpose of this test.  Surely.  We're searching for a loss of bass in the transfer.

And yes, NOW, they both claim to have heard substantial differences in the room.  YET, when Steve put the question to Fletcher and the group about whether anyone heard any perceived bass loss, NOT A SINGLE HAND WENT UP.  Not Fletcher's.  Nor any of the 18 others or whatever.  Nor did Steve make A SINGLE COMMENT AT THAT TIME about any differences.  Both have claimed that they didn't want to skew the results.  THE ONLY THING THAT SKEWED THE RESULTS WAS THEIR NOT BEING TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT AT THE TIME.  At that time, they had Gannon right there, they had the entire CRC staff, they had the entire test set up AND NEITHER ONE SPEAKS UP?  Right then, right there, they had the ability to decide about your claims, everyone was ready and waiting to hear the outcome and both Steve and Fletcher didn't step up to address the issue with the group.  That's just bullshit.  Sorry.

Let's go back to Steve's earlier post: "I say we play the tape, play the PT and see if there is a consensus."  Well, they did just that, and THERE WAS A CONSENSUS.  Not a single person stated at that time that there was any loss of bass.  There's lots of grade school logic going on here.

Mixerman, might I remind you that in your earlier posts, you wrote: "I can't tell you all how pleased I am to see that Steve Albini will be at this "party." With Steve and Fletcher there, I have all the confidence in the world that this will be done properly."

And: "No hedging at all. Merely making a suggestion based on some technical concerns raised in this thread. I don't think there is much of anything that will cause me to dispute the results of this test."

Did you get that?  You, after having the benefit of contributing to the methodology thread, said "I DON'T THINK THERE IS MUCH OF ANYTHING THAT WILL CAUSE ME TO DISPUTE THE RESULTS OF THIS TEST."

Even Fletcher was on board for this to be the ultimate tests:  "You have all the various sides you need... you have a guy from Digi, you have moi... and despite the article I wrote where I couldn't slam the "Venue" console... IF THERE IS ANY WAY TO FILET DIGI IN A FAIR TEST, I'M OUT TO NAIL THEM TO A CROSS...so, if this group of exceptionally differing opinions can agree on a methodology then you know it's fair... sort of like a democracy but without the red states and the blue states part... but make no mistake, everyone involved in this has their own agenda, several agendas that are in opposition generally makes for one fair set of testing methodology."

YET, Fletcher didn't take his golden opportunity to "filet" Digi.  Instead, he sat there silent, knowing that this was his moment to step up and substantiate your claims.  And when he came back from the tests, his first post was: "Well the whole thing was pretty eye opening in some regards, at least to me. PT didn't suck nearly as much as I thought it was going to suck... and there were even some aspects of it [different clocking hardware] that were down right decent sounding... but I'm not going to get into any kind of a blow by blow... I'm sure someone else will do that."

Sure, Steve and Fletcher "heard" the difference WHEN THE TEST WASN'T BLIND, and how valid is a non-blind test involving someone who had claimed "if there's any way to filet Digi, I'm out to nail them to the cross."?  

Mixerman, come on.  We're not idiots here...


 


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 28, 2005, 03:46:28 PM
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 14:38

RKrizman wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 12:46



If the results don't exist outside of the room, then everybody's time is being wasted.  

-R


This is where you?re mistaken.

When an artist or a band have been listening to, grooving on, and emotionally responding to tracks for days, especially when those tracks are ?dead on? in their sonic vision, the performers become emotionally attached to that response. It?s kind of like a drug. We?ve all been there. Smiling ear to ear that we?ve nailed it. Elation abounds. The artist is happy. I?m happy. The mooks are even happy. Certainly, anyone that has spent a minute recording knows and understands this excitement.

IF I as a recordist, make a technical decision?and transferring to another medium IS a technical decision?then I am risking the destruction of that emotional response. If the band or the artist loses that emotional response, I risk losing the performances I need. I risk bland uninspired vocals; anemic guitar parts. I risk a complete focus shift from, ?This is great! Let?s keep going!? to ?I hate my life.?




I know exactly what you're talking about, and you're right, it is like a drug. ( And in fact, sometimes it is a drug.) But this type of "love it/hate it" thing has occurred in studios long before Protools was ever invented.  There are any number of things that can change the magical arrangement of the molecules in the room.  By the time you've done a transfer perhaps the new car smell has worn off and people are hyperfocusing on the small picture.  Perhaps by then reality has set in and you're realizing the track really wasn't that great after all.  Any number of factors can be at work, including anyone's negatvie attitude about the technology in play, or the fact that the collective consciousness is paying attention at all to that technology.  At the end of the day, it has to come out of the room and people have to like it there too.

It's like trying to recapture the magic of that rough mix.  (Of course, with a DAW you can preserve that moment).

-R

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 28, 2005, 03:59:03 PM
hargerst wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:20

The problem I have is that I respect all the people that are commenting on this "problem".  But it sounds like the Chicago tests may not have been up to the task of re-creating the problem Mixerman described - FOR WHATEVER REASONS. .


No Harvey, if you're going to say that you need to point to what it is about the test that was not up to the task.  We can dispute the results, but the methodology was sound.  

Why is it that when somebody does a test and the results don't corroborate MM's experience, that certain people automatically assume the test is flawed?  If every test that demonstrates there is no problem is assumed in advance to be flawed, then we're just debating religion here.  

And by the way Harvey, and said with all due respect, if you're going to weigh in you should listen to those files and give us your impressions.  I think they can yield more results than people are giving them credit for.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 04:07:57 PM
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 12:59

hargerst wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:20

The problem I have is that I respect all the people that are commenting on this "problem".  But it sounds like the Chicago tests may not have been up to the task of re-creating the problem Mixerman described - FOR WHATEVER REASONS. .


No Harvey, if you're going to say that you need to point to what it is about the test that was not up to the task.  We can dispute the results, but the methodology was sound.  

Why is it that when somebody does a test and the results don't corroborate MM's experience, that certain people automatically assume the test is flawed?  If every test that demonstrates there is no problem is assumed in advance to be flawed, then we're just debating religion here.  

-R


Good point.

On one hand there are Mixerman's claims. Many believe these so strongly on face value, that this well attended, thought out test must be flawed as the projected outcome by Mixerman did not pan out.  

The "enemy", Pro Tools, ended up not broken.

Why is it so hard to believe that a 2" 16 track recording can be transferred into Pro Tools via the Digi 192 without severe bottom end loss?

It just happened for all to hear!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 28, 2005, 04:20:57 PM
I think if there was a mistake made, it was more that Mixerman (who seems to be the guy people are trying to disprove) failed to take into account that his relationship with a track is much more intimate when he does his layback to PT.  For that reason, the differences seem more prominent to him.  The 192 is going to change the sonics in its own way, no doubt about it.  He has, as he stated in his last post, a much more focused listen at that time.  This makes sense to me, and trying to tie people up on details just makes the other folks look like they have an axe to grind.  Lets find the probelem, as HG said, and address it to MM's satisfaction.  Agreeing to something only to find that you left something else out is not the way to lose a point, and should not be a way to win, when everyone has the pursuit of musical excellence at heart.

It reminds me of the song about the Bowery where the guy buys the box of socks only to find out that he bought the box and not the socks.  Tough luck, fella.  Fairness in practice should be everyone's goal.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 04:24:55 PM
danickstr wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 13:20

I thk if there was a mistake made, it was more that Mixerman (who seems to be the guy people are trying to disprove) failed to take into account that his relationship with a track is much more intimate when he does his layback to PT.  For that reason, the differences seem more prominent to him.  The 192 is going to change the sonics in its own way, no doubt about it.  He has, as he stated in his last post, a much more focused listen at that time.  Thsi makes sense to me, and trying to tie people up on details just makes the other folks look like they have an axe to grind.  Lets find the probelem, as HG said, and address it to MM's satisfaction.  Agreeing to something only to find that you left something else out is not the way to lose a point, and should not be a way to win, when everyone has the pursuit of musical excellence at heart.


This was Mixerman's test. He said he would have no issues with the outcome based on the people involved.

He also claimed the bottom end drop was so severe that his maid could hear it on a CD.

That is not what you are spinning.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 28, 2005, 04:41:24 PM
"Obviously, Mixerman believes the differences should be quite audible, while the Chicago tests did not reveal any differences of the scope Mixerman suggests."

I think mixerman maybe suffering from a cognitive disconnect on this issue.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 05:23:10 PM
hargerst wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 12:20



Forget the "Is, too - is not" crap and get Mixerman to say, "Listen, there it is!".  Then, go from there.


This what the files from Chicago are about.

It's all about IS or IS NOT there severe bottom end loss on one of the 3 files.  And if so, is that file the Pro Tools file.

What is flawed about that?

So far the mastering guys have not jumped in here talking about 24/96 and a Lavry Blue converter being suspect to either chopping the bottom end off all of the files or adding the severe loss of bottom back into only the Pro Tools files.

This is only complicated to those who don't wish to believe the final outcome.  IMHO
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 28, 2005, 05:25:38 PM
Also,

The interesting thing is that the problem is no longer a severe loss of bass but an "emotional response".

MM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

What I can't compensate for is the annihilation of a performer's excitement, or belief in the product that he, she, or we are making.

------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

What a crock of shit.

I asked you why you still use PT if it kills your sound so bad instead of using radar, you said your editors work faster on PT and it Free's you up to work on other things. You certainly have the option to work on a system that maintains the "emotional response" you and the band are feeling.

MM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
What I can't compensate for is the annihilation of a performer's excitement, or belief in the product that he, she, or we are making.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

This is where YOU ARE mistaken.

I'd say your to blame for knowingly allowing the "emotional response"  to change by using any piece of gear you don't feel confident about.

A convenient excuse at best.

If you have to compensate for a "the annihilation of a performer's excitement," YOUR NOT doing your job right.

MM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
I'm doing a session December in which I'll be working analog and then switching to digital. I have a full blown HD in the room. I am inviting anyone that is in LA to come down for a morning and take a listen. A casual listen to show to anyone that is interested precisely what happens in this sort of transfer.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Why would you choose to continue down this path?

You have already killed the "emotional response" of your project in December and it hasn't even started yet.

MM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
If you would like to consider the opinions of the other (18?) people in the room, that's fine. But I might point out that bias is a two way street, and such things as experience, knowledge, and a verifiable track record should probably have some sort of weight when compared to a random smattering of local "experts" whose names don't even appear on the radar.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

Your penis is blowing in the wind now. Let's not forget that to most here, you are a fictitious Internet character at best who claims a lot of stuff.



MM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Regardless, I will schedule a more precise and scientific test after the casual December listen. I have PMs (and some emails) from many of you here in LA, and I'll send out invitations in the next week or two.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

Great, but it is rather apparent many that you have invited to your test
have declined your invitation. This is quite telling.

36 hours?

Right around Wednesday when the results will be revealed?

For sure, suffering from a cognitive disconnect.

And Fletcher, if you don't think this post is on topic and feel the need to delete it, think about it again. MM made the claim. He is at the center of the topic.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 06:05:10 PM
Not even reading between the lines here, the main hedge on this test is now 24/96, Lavry Blue and Nuendo.

The claims are that some could hear the differences in the room (regardless of bias and knowing the source) but once the files were transferred through the Lavry Blue into Nuendo and the test became "blind" for the first time, all major differences were homogenized.

Am I to believe everyone mixing through a Lavry Blue making adjustments to their mixes in the bottom end do not hear the differences?

Can we even go down that road?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 06:05:53 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 21:41

"Obviously, Mixerman believes the differences should be quite audible, while the Chicago tests did not reveal any differences of the scope Mixerman suggests."

I think mixerman maybe suffering from a cognitive disconnect on this issue.




It all comes down character assassination, does it?  Ron, you have a real chance with this test to make the case against Mixerman's claim, or more importantly debunk an attitude toward what is an industry standard in Pro Tools.  Are you going to squander that chance by turning this into a personal attack?  

For that matter what about the rest of you?  This is an opportunity; the test has caught the attention of Digidesign.  By the way, what were Gannon's impressions?  In the endless pages of threads on this, I don't think he has said anything in these forums.

I've been busy, so I haven't had a chance to check out the files yet.  However, consider this:

Unlike those who participated live, those of us listening to the files have the added variables such as an additional encoding stage in the 2 track and the upload and download of the files.  Does it matter?  Have the files changed because of these added steps,  I don't know.

Also, Mixerman extended an invitation to me and I accepted to have demonstrate what he has experienced in person.  Will there be a change in the bass?  Maybe.  Will it be "severe?"  I don't know, I'll just have to check it out in person.

I'll tell you what I told him.  I'm not interested in "science,"  just show me.  As a technician at Larrabee, I had engineers show me problems real, and imagined.  And sometimes they just weren't that big a deal.

Cheers,

Carter William Humphrey
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 06:12:02 PM
Carter,

Gannon posted on the first page of this thread.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 06:20:15 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:05

Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 21:41

"Obviously, Mixerman believes the differences should be quite audible, while the Chicago tests did not reveal any differences of the scope Mixerman suggests."

I think mixerman maybe suffering from a cognitive disconnect on this issue.



 

Unlike those who participated live, those of us listening to the files have the added variables such as an additional encoding stage in the 2 track and the upload and download of the files.  Does it matter?  Have the files changed because of these added steps,  I don't know.


Cheers,

Carter William Humphrey


Are you suggesting that perhaps by downloading or uploading a 24/96 digital file, the sound will change?

What additional encoding stage in the 2 track are you talking about?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 06:22:26 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:20

CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:05

Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 21:41

"Obviously, Mixerman believes the differences should be quite audible, while the Chicago tests did not reveal any differences of the scope Mixerman suggests."

I think mixerman maybe suffering from a cognitive disconnect on this issue.



 

Unlike those who participated live, those of us listening to the files have the added variables such as an additional encoding stage in the 2 track and the upload and download of the files.  Does it matter?  Have the files changed because of these added steps,  I don't know.


Cheers,

Carter William Humphrey


Are you suggesting that perhaps by downloading or uploading a 24/96 digital file, the sound will change?

What additional encoding stage in the 2 track are you talking about?



They used the Lavry's...Nuendo, something... I've lost track.  Everybody heard the transfer go down live, then later did a blind test I believe I read.  

Does uploading and downloading 24/96 change the sound?  I don't know--that's probably a Bob Katz question.  I'm just pointing out that it's an added variable.

I'd just like to hear the transfer go down live.  As a matter of fact, even though I'm all for a straight transfer machine to directly to machine, it would be nice to use the busses and flip live between the playback machine and record machine.  Yeah yeah, you can lock the two together but, this method gets the two machines in "sync" with each other while they both can run "wild."

I'm going to check out Gannon's response and then I've got to get going on this mix.  And yes, I'm mixing in the box, in you're interested.

Cheers,

-Carter
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 28, 2005, 06:32:03 PM
As pointed out to me already, I didn't pipe up in the Methodology thread but I still say,, Do a test in the room ,rolling the 2" and make a transfer into PT. Line the levels up and roll each one. Keep the machines out of the room. Don't listen to Mixed audio for the test. Listen straight off the two buss of the console. This would tell the final story, for those that believe the story has not yet been told.

These guys are hearing something. I refuse to believe that Fletcher, Bob and MixerMan and others, are just trying to beat on PT.

I did not hear a drop of Bottom in these files, {mine were converted to 44.1 by Bill. Thanks!} But, I've been around long enough to know that there is a huge difference between mixed audio and what comes out the rear end of a console. I don't know,,, it seems like something is wrong here to me. Maybe there is a bigger problem in the general Digital world that is hit and miss?  There's a lot going on when we make records. Who knows.

Don't take this the wrong way,like I'm boasting or something but, if there is even a small drop in bottom on a recording, I'll hear it. And did in fact hear differences in how the low end is presented on these files. I think it's a rise in the mid band that gives a very small perceived drop in bottom..

The files are VERY close though IMHO, {listened on headphones.}

Ivan.......
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 06:36:48 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:22

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:20

CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:05

Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 21:41

"Obviously, Mixerman believes the differences should be quite audible, while the Chicago tests did not reveal any differences of the scope Mixerman suggests."

I think mixerman maybe suffering from a cognitive disconnect on this issue.



 

Unlike those who participated live, those of us listening to the files have the added variables such as an additional encoding stage in the 2 track and the upload and download of the files.  Does it matter?  Have the files changed because of these added steps,  I don't know.


Cheers,

Carter William Humphrey


Are you suggesting that perhaps by downloading or uploading a 24/96 digital file, the sound will change?

What additional encoding stage in the 2 track are you talking about?



They used the Lavry's...Nuendo, something... I've lost track.  Everybody heard the transfer go down live, then later did a blind test I believe I read.  

Does uploading and downloading 24/96 change the sound?  I don't know--that's probably a Bob Katz question.  I'm just pointing out that it's an added variable.

I'd just like to hear the transfer go down live.  As a matter of fact, even though I'm all for a straight transfer machine to directly to machine, it would be nice to use the busses and flip live between the playback machine and record machine.  Yeah yeah, you can lock the two together but, this method gets the two machines in "sync" with each other while they both can run "wild."

I'm going to check out Gannon's response and then I've got to get going on this mix.  And yes, I'm mixing in the box, in you're interested.

Cheers,

-Carter



I agree on hearing the test go down live but then without the mix files everyone is back to "I heard it"  "I didn't" thing.

It does seem that everyone now is trying to blame the Lavry Blue and Neundo.  Perhaps that is the test to have.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 06:38:36 PM
Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 20:18

Hi all,

Here's how I thought it went.

Background:  We did tape to Pro Tools clocked to the 192 internal, SYNC I/O and Big Ben transfers at 48k and 96K and tape to Radar at 48k and 96k.  For the blind tests, we only listened to the PT transfers with the 192 internal clock (though we will post examples of all clocks for you to listen to and decide which ones you like best - blind, of course).  

There were 18 listeners in the room.  Prior to the blind tests, Steve asked the room if anyone detected a loss of low end as that's what originally set out to check.  Not a single hand went up.  It didn't seem like anybody heard a discernable loss of low frequency information at all.

Then we did the blind tests in "A/B/X" fashion.  We took 5 examples - tape, PT 48k, PT 96k, Radar 48k and Radar 96k - and paired them up as "A" and "B" in random pairs.  Sometimes it was tape and PT96k and other times it was Radar 48k and PT 96k - you get the idea.  18 passes were performed altogther where the operator would play a 15 second section of "A", a 15 second section of "B" then randomly select one or the other and play that back as "X".  The listeners then were to identify what they thought "X" was.  

Of the 18 passes, the room had a 50% accuracy in correctly identifying the "X".  The highest score in the room was 13 correct, the lowest was something like 4.  There are differences in the sounds of these exaples to be sure, but they are subtle enough that they can only be picked out half of the time which means it's pretty clear that all 5 of these formats are very comparable in sound.  Subtly different, yes, egregiously inaccurate, no.

That's my take on it.  I'm sure others will chime in with their impressions.  We still haven't sorted out how to deliver the files to y'all, but I'm suggesting posting 20 second excerpts (the same ones we listened to plus the clock alternatives) of the raw 24/96k files and create a poll of which ones you like best and why.  You woulndn't be able to do blind comparison tests, but you can certainly tell which ones you like best.  The files should be labeled "A", "B", "C", etc and put up for a week or so then revealed.

We'll figure that out and get them up asap.  There was also a movie of the whole thing.  I'm kicking myself for not taking any pictures!

I'd like to thank Ron Steele and the kind folks at CRC for generously hosting this thing.  Azoulas, Bruce, Chris, Chrisand the rest of the crew - you guys are awesome!  Also, Steve and Fletcher for providing the tape, headstack, Radar and making the test as scientific as possible - and for keeping an open mind!  I know I was there with and open mind and was very relieved to know that "we don't suck as much as Fletcher thought we did".  Smile

-GK




Ok, so I read it.  And here it is in its entirety.  Umm, am I missing something?  Gannon didn't seem give an opinion of his own, he just reported on what happend.  So Gannon, if you're reading this, what are your thoughts on this?

Cheers,

Carter
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 06:42:37 PM
Carter,

Listen to the files. They speak for themselves.

I find his post to be very clear and free of anything personal.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 28, 2005, 06:46:57 PM
"It all comes down character assassination, does it? Ron, you have a real chance with this test to make the case against Mixerman's claim, or more importantly debunk an attitude toward what is an industry standard in Pro Tools. Are you going to squander that chance by turning this into a personal attack? "

Well Carter, maybe I reacted to these comments made by MM:
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
If you would like to consider the opinions of the other (18?) people in the room, that's fine. But I might point out that bias is a two way street, and such things as experience, knowledge, and a verifiable track record should probably have some sort of weight when compared to a random smattering of local "experts" whose names don't even appear on the radar.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
Uh....I guess this means steve is the only credible person in chicago who's opinion qualifies?

Carter, would you agree with that?

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
we can't put any stock in those files. Like I said, even if I can easily pick them out, this is not the level of the problem that I've discussed here.

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------

Carter, surely as a tech you can understand all the set-up that went into this.

Now MM is the only one who can do a transfer properly?

He essentially is insulting the methodology and everybody who made this test happen.


Is he right?








Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 07:19:39 PM
Ron,

Mixerman has deemed this test moot yet he hasn't even listened to the files.

That is the most telling right there.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 28, 2005, 07:42:36 PM
Carter,

No one is trying to assassinate characters here.  We're merely trying to put forth the humanistic concept of being held accountable for things you might claim against another person, another company, etc.

In Mixerman's case, he was totally fine with the methodology of the tests.  Again, he was so comfortable with the methodology, that he stated, "I don't think there is much of anything that will cause me to dispute the results of this test."

To add a little comedy here, during the methodology thread, Mixerman said this, "I did 48k and 96k transfers. I'm fine with using 44.1 instead of 48, but you should do 96k along with the lower sample rate."

Gannon, the Digi rep, then said this, "I agree with Ron - Mixerman's original transfer was at 44.1 or 48k so let's stick to testing that (Mixerman, please specify your original conditions again). The 96k tests should be done at another time. I think we should simplify this grid substantially and do one sample rate and one calibration level and end up with three files: Tape, Pro Tools @44.1@-20 and Radar at 44.1@-20."

Following that, Fletcher said this, "What the fuck does Digi Design have to hide at 96kHz? It seems that Gannon and Ron have this dreaded fear of the 96kHz sampling rate... I don't get it.  Are we being rushed out of the room or something? Do we have like 2 hours to get this done with another session breathing down our neck? "

So, it was clearly the DIGI guy who was pushing for NO 96K.  Mixerman and Fletcher were WANTING it.

So, when the test files were presented, Mixerman says this, "It's too many files to compare.  If you'd like to limit it to three files, (the 48k transfer) I'll tell you which one is missing the bottom octave. But I'm not going through 9 files made from different sampling rates. That's absurd."

Gotta admit...that's kinda funny.

In Fletcher's case, he went to Chicago to substantiate a single claim...that Pro Tools will lose severe low end when receiving files from 2".  They made the transfer from 2" to Pro Tools.  Steve Albini asked a simple question, "Does anyone in this room hear any loss of low end?".  Fletcher's hand did not go up.  No one's did.  

Then, when Fletcher gets home, he says, "...sitting in the room it was as clear as the difference between rain and snow".  Fletcher, you're really asking us to stretch for you here.  You dragged yourself all the way to Chi town and didn't speak up when you finally had a captive audience?

If there was a guy standing outside of Mercenary Audio, screaming, "Mercenary sells used stuff as new!", and if I knew that not to be true, I'd be out there fighting for Fletcher, as false accusations can be damaging.  And if I saw that guy posting as such on the internet, I'd chime in that I've never had a problem with getting new gear from Mercenary.

So, this is not about character assassinations.  This is about separating fact from fiction and trying to wade through the bullshit to get to what's real.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 07:59:58 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:46

"It all comes down character assassination, does it? Ron, you have a real chance with this test to make the case against Mixerman's claim, or more importantly debunk an attitude toward what is an industry standard in Pro Tools. Are you going to squander that chance by turning this into a personal attack? "

Well Carter, maybe I reacted to these comments made by MM:
 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
If you would like to consider the opinions of the other (18?) people in the room, that's fine. But I might point out that bias is a two way street, and such things as experience, knowledge, and a verifiable track record should probably have some sort of weight when compared to a random smattering of local "experts" whose names don't even appear on the radar.
 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
Uh....I guess this means steve is the only credible person in chicago who's opinion qualifies?

Carter, would you agree with that?

 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
we can't put any stock in those files. Like I said, even if I can easily pick them out, this is not the level of the problem that I've discussed here.

 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------

Carter, surely as a tech you can understand all the set-up that went into this.

Now MM is the only one who can do a transfer properly?

He essentially is insulting the methodology and everybody who made this test happen.


Is he right?











Well, I'm back at the computer.  A crash and phone call has given me an unscheduled break.  Guess who the phone call was from?  yep, Mixerman himself.  He sounds just like Bill Dooley on the phone (but since Bill is a good friend of mine, I know he couldn't possibly be MM).  Anyway, I don't think Mixerman will mind me saying that there's going to be a transfer real soon.  

By the way, I gave up the tech. thing years ago.  

Cheers,

Carter
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 08:04:02 PM
The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 00:42



So, this is not about character assassinations.  This is about separating fact from fiction and trying to wade through the bullshit to get to what's real.




Good. I don't really want to be the School Marm anyway.  I just want to make sure that the test stays professional.  

Cheers,

Carter
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 28, 2005, 08:18:57 PM
Carter,

Professional, yes.  I think that's the point here.

It's tough to use the word "professional" when vets get together in a room, ALL claim that there is NO bass loss, then some later start claiming that the difference in the room was like night and day.

And yes, it's tough to use the word "professional" when a person has an integral part in defining the methodology and then, once the test is done, AND BEFORE EVEN LISTENING TO THE FILES, claims that the methodology was flawed.

I  think it would be tough for any reasonable person to refer to either of those scenarios as "professional".
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 08:56:59 PM
The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:18

Carter,

Professional, yes.  I think that's the point here.

It's tough to use the word "professional" when vets get together in a room, ALL claim that there is NO bass loss, then some later start claiming that the difference in the room was like night and day.

And yes, it's tough to use the word "professional" when a person has an integral part in defining the methodology and then, once the test is done, AND BEFORE EVEN LISTENING TO THE FILES, claims that the methodology was flawed.

I  think it would be tough for any reasonable person to refer to either of those scenarios as "professional".


Fair enough.  I just don't want this to become like R.A.P.  Also, I'd like to reinvite Gannon into this discussion.  

Cheers,

Carter
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 09:06:24 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 17:04

The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 00:42



So, this is not about character assassinations.  This is about separating fact from fiction and trying to wade through the bullshit to get to what's real.




Good. I don't really want to be the School Marm anyway.  I just want to make sure that the test stays professional.  

Cheers,

Carter


Stays professional?  What does that mean?

There was a test in Chicago ONLY to prove or disprove Mixerman's claims.

What is professional about the new test?

That Mixerman will conduct it?

It's like Bobby Riggs asking Billy Jean King for a rematch on his own court with his own ref and no cameras.

The Chicago test was everything BUT that.

At this point Mixerman has not listened to the files.  You claim you haven't listened to the files.

And Mixerman and you feel there is a need for a new test?

Wow!

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 28, 2005, 09:12:10 PM
Quote:

Also, I'd like to reinvite Gannon into this discussion.

Cheers,

Carter





Carter, just tell mixerman to invite Gannon himself. Laughing

He is very professional, and a nice guy to.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 09:17:29 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 17:56

The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:18

Carter,

Professional, yes.  I think that's the point here.

It's tough to use the word "professional" when vets get together in a room, ALL claim that there is NO bass loss, then some later start claiming that the difference in the room was like night and day.

And yes, it's tough to use the word "professional" when a person has an integral part in defining the methodology and then, once the test is done, AND BEFORE EVEN LISTENING TO THE FILES, claims that the methodology was flawed.

I  think it would be tough for any reasonable person to refer to either of those scenarios as "professional".


Fair enough.  I just don't want this to become like R.A.P.  Also, I'd like to reinvite Gannon into this discussion.  

Cheers,

Carter




You don't want this to become like RAP, yet you are calling for a new test when you haven't even listened to this test?

When you didn't even read through the posts enough to see Gannon's post on his involvement in the test?

It looks more like someone asked you to come in here and stir it up just like on RAP on the surface.

Just sayin'......

If people have a problem with Steve Albini's 2" 16 track tape being transferred into RADAR and Pro Tools, played back through the exact same fader levels and pan out of the console, into a Lavry Blue stored in Nuendo, then by all means go to your private sandbox and repeat...  The Lavry screwed it up, the Lavry screwed it up.  

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 28, 2005, 09:28:38 PM
I'm confused.  Why is anybody who hasn't listened to the files even posting in this thread?  

(And even strangely, why are they assuming that the files don't show a problem?  )

This will be over soon.  I humbly and sincerely request that the people who haven't listened try to do so before the files are revealed.  Otherwise why should I or anybody else here or the guy from Digi even give a flying fig about any subsequent test?

-R

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 09:29:11 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:06

CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 17:04

The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 00:42



So, this is not about character assassinations.  This is about separating fact from fiction and trying to wade through the bullshit to get to what's real.




Good. I don't really want to be the School Marm anyway.  I just want to make sure that the test stays professional.  

Cheers,

Carter


Stays professional?  What does that mean?

There was a test in Chicago ONLY to prove or disprove Mixerman's claims.

What is professional about the new test?

That Mixerman will conduct it?

It's like Bobby Riggs asking Billy Jean King for a rematch on his own court with his own ref and no cameras.

The Chicago test was everything BUT that.

At this point Mixerman has not listened to the files.  You claim you haven't listened to the files.

And Mixerman and you feel there is a need for a new test?

Wow!




Wow! indeed.  I never said there was a need for a new test.  However, Mixerman extended an invitation to me (and you, I believe) to check this out in person.  

And you are right.  It looks like there will be no cameras, no hoopla, and no "science" so I'm leaving the lab coat at home.

-Carter  



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 09:40:39 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 18:29

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:06

CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 17:04

The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 00:42



So, this is not about character assassinations.  This is about separating fact from fiction and trying to wade through the bullshit to get to what's real.




Good. I don't really want to be the School Marm anyway.  I just want to make sure that the test stays professional.  

Cheers,

Carter


Stays professional?  What does that mean?

There was a test in Chicago ONLY to prove or disprove Mixerman's claims.

What is professional about the new test?

That Mixerman will conduct it?

It's like Bobby Riggs asking Billy Jean King for a rematch on his own court with his own ref and no cameras.

The Chicago test was everything BUT that.

At this point Mixerman has not listened to the files.  You claim you haven't listened to the files.

And Mixerman and you feel there is a need for a new test?

Wow!




Wow! indeed.  I never said there was a need for a new test.  However, Mixerman extended an invitation to me (and you, I believe) to check this out in person.  

And you are right.  It looks like there will be no cameras, no hoopla, and no "science" so I'm leaving the lab coat at home.

-Carter  







So you are going to sit in a room and report back that you indeed heard it or not?

After this?

No thanks.

No "science"?  This is already set up to have bottom end loss?  Why go?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 28, 2005, 09:45:22 PM
Carter, I honestly don't believe this, but it does appear like you are shilling for mixerman.

And Rick has a very good point, why are you discussing the MM test when you haven't even heard the files from the chicago test.

Fletcher dumped the MM LA transfer test in to the basement for a reason.

Just listen to the files, and then we can talk about whatever you like regarding the Chicago test.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 09:48:00 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:17


You don't want this to become like RAP, yet you are calling for a new test when you haven't even listened to this test?

When you didn't even read through the posts enough to see Gannon's post on his involvement in the test?

It looks more like someone asked you to come in here and stir it up just like on RAP on the surface.

Just sayin'......

If people have a problem with Steve Albini's 2" 16 track tape being transferred into RADAR and Pro Tools, played back through the exact same fader levels and pan out of the console, into a Lavry Blue stored in Nuendo, then by all means go to your private sandbox and repeat...  The Lavry screwed it up, the Lavry screwed it up.  




Look at me, I'm an agitator.  

Just so we have this straight, I've never met Mixerman.  I've had 2 conversations with him on the phone, including today.  If you feel that I appeared out of nowhere, then go check out the methodology thread.  I'm the one putting "science" in quotes all the time.

Please explain to me, since I'm kind of dense, how I'm stirring it up.  All I asked was that this discussion stay on the topic of Pro Tools and the claim made by Mixerman and not degenerate into name calling.  

And, if you reread my posts, I have made no claim about any product including Pro Tools, Lavry, or Nuendo on any of the PSW forums.  

So ends the disclaimer.

-Carter





Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 09:53:12 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 18:48

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:17


You don't want this to become like RAP, yet you are calling for a new test when you haven't even listened to this test?

When you didn't even read through the posts enough to see Gannon's post on his involvement in the test?

It looks more like someone asked you to come in here and stir it up just like on RAP on the surface.

Just sayin'......

If people have a problem with Steve Albini's 2" 16 track tape being transferred into RADAR and Pro Tools, played back through the exact same fader levels and pan out of the console, into a Lavry Blue stored in Nuendo, then by all means go to your private sandbox and repeat...  The Lavry screwed it up, the Lavry screwed it up.  




Look at me, I'm an agitator.  

Just so we have this straight, I've never met Mixerman.  I've had 2 conversations with him on the phone, including today.  If you feel that I appeared out of nowhere, then go check out the methodology thread.  I'm the one putting "science" in quotes all the time.

Please explain to me, since I'm kind of dense, how I'm stirring it up.  All I asked was that this discussion stay on the topic of Pro Tools and the claim made by Mixerman and not degenerate into name calling.  

And, if you reread my posts, I have made no claim about any product including Pro Tools, Lavry, or Nuendo on any of the PSW forums.  

So ends the disclaimer.

-Carter









Gee, I dunno -

You haven't listened to the files.

You hadn't even read Gannon's post and were unaware they he had posted.

You talk about keeping this professional yet again seem to be a tad unaware at least of some of the discussion and how the files sound since the test ended.

You bring up RAP?

You talk about a download of a digital file changing the sound.

And you are only having a discussion about everything BUT the files in the current test.

Hmmmmmmm.  Let me think.....
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 10:01:18 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:45

Carter, I honestly don't believe this, but it does appear like you are shilling for mixerman.

And Rick has a very good point, why are you discussing the MM test when you haven't even heard the files from the chicago test.

Fletcher dumped the MM LA transfer test in to the basement for a reason.

Just listen to the files, and then we can talk about whatever you like regarding the Chicago test.


Ron,

I figured that somebody would think that.  I don't even know why I care what you guys say about Mixerman, or anybody else on here.  Actually, I've been very critical of Mixerman at times.  Back in the day, I thought the whole Alsihad and MOA business offensive.  

Three years ago on Bill Dooley's forum, I even took on someone repeating Mixerman's claim that the bass "problem" was related to impedance loading.  Mixerman himself showed up there and backed off that statement.

Do a search here, you'll notice that I took on Mixerman with whole "hedging, hedging, hedging" routine.

I will say this for Mixerman, he seems like a nice guy on the phone, and he writes a great book.

I will check out the files probably tonight.

Cheers,

Carter

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 28, 2005, 10:08:35 PM
Carter,

Another of Fletcher's posts on the methodology of the Chicago tests was spot on:  "As I've mentioned to Ron more than a few times, we will have several different people working with varied agendas... so, if we can work out a step by step methodolgy to which everyone involved agrees then you can pretty well plan that the playing field is entirely even as each faction can not disagree with any of the other factions on the method."

Yes, this IS the way that a FAIR, and UNBIASED test takes place.  When you have people there representing both sides of a "discussion".  That's why Fletcher flew in from Boston, Gannon from Denver, all in an effort to have Radar present, take the time to make sure that the Digi system was working properly, etc.  Not to mention the dedication of Ron Steele, the CRC staff and Steve Albini.  This was THE test.  

Prior to it, EVERYONE was on board about the methodology.  EVERYONE.  There were nearly three weeks of posts regarding the methodology alone.  Mixerman, Fletcher, Steve, Ron, Gannon, and all else signed off as to the fairness of the tests.  If you're interested, read the TWO entire threads about methodology.

For anyone to be claiming that this test was nor definitive, especially those who had, in writing on this board, stated their support for the methodology prior to the test, is simply ridiculous and doesn't even deserve a response.   Don't allow yourself to be sucked into the vortex of unfounded platform-bashing.  

Listen to the files at hand, and let's discuss.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 10:12:53 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:53





Gee, I dunno -

You haven't listened to the files.

You hadn't even read Gannon's post and were unaware they he had posted.

You talk about keeping this professional yet again seem to be a tad unaware at least of some of the discussion and how the files sound since the test ended.

You bring up RAP?

You talk about a download of a digital file changing the sound.

And you are only having a discussion about everything BUT the files in the current test.

Hmmmmmmm.  Let me think.....


You're right. I haven't listened to the files.  

But then you're wrong.  Check a few posts upstream, and you'll notice that I quoted Gannon's post in its entirety.  Also, I mentioned that the up/download of a digital file was an added variable, not that it does or doesn't change the sound.  

Just so you know, I've read a little on everyone's impressions of the files.  I haven't had the time nor the will to wade through everyone's impressions.  I got the jist, nobody's hearing a big loss of bass.

Yes, I'll check the files.  And yes, I will allow Mixerman to wow me with his amazing transfer abilities.

-Carter William Humphrey


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 10:16:24 PM
I'm waiting for ANYONE to chime in that they have had a problem with Lavry Blue and Nuendo at 24/96 changing the hue of their sound to a point where changes in mixes were erased.

Also nobody ever said that the first playback of the mix files had no bottom end anymore.

They did say the differences were much more subtle in the files.

Now was that because they listened blind or that the Lavry screwed up the sound?

Obvious to some.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 10:18:23 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:12

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:53





Gee, I dunno -

You haven't listened to the files.

You hadn't even read Gannon's post and were unaware they he had posted.

You talk about keeping this professional yet again seem to be a tad unaware at least of some of the discussion and how the files sound since the test ended.

You bring up RAP?

You talk about a download of a digital file changing the sound.

And you are only having a discussion about everything BUT the files in the current test.

Hmmmmmmm.  Let me think.....


You're right. I haven't listened to the files.  

But then you're wrong.  Check a few posts upstream, and you'll notice that I quoted Gannon's post in its entirety.  Also, I mentioned that the up/download of a digital file was an added variable, not that it does or doesn't change the sound.  

Just so you know, I've read a little on everyone's impressions of the files.  I haven't had the time nor the will to wade through everyone's impressions.  I got the jist, nobody's hearing a big loss of bass.

Yes, I'll check the files.  And yes, I will allow Mixerman to wow me with his amazing transfer abilities.

-Carter William Humphrey






You quoted Gannon only AFTER I told you that he posted on the first page.  Until then, you didn't know if he had posted.  

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 10:25:37 PM
The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 03:08

Carter,

Another of Fletcher's posts on the methodology of the Chicago tests was spot on:  "As I've mentioned to Ron more than a few times, we will have several different people working with varied agendas... so, if we can work out a step by step methodolgy to which everyone involved agrees then you can pretty well plan that the playing field is entirely even as each faction can not disagree with any of the other factions on the method."

Yes, this IS the way that a FAIR, and UNBIASED test takes place.  When you have people there representing both sides of a "discussion".  That's why Fletcher flew in from Boston, Gannon from Denver, all in an effort to have Radar present, take the time to make sure that the Digi system was working properly, etc.  Not to mention the dedication of Ron Steele, the CRC staff and Steve Albini.  This was THE test.  

Prior to it, EVERYONE was on board about the methodology.  EVERYONE.  There were nearly three weeks of posts regarding the methodology alone.  Mixerman, Fletcher, Steve, Ron, Gannon, and all else signed off as to the fairness of the tests.  If you're interested, read the TWO entire threads about methodology.

For anyone to be claiming that this test was nor definitive, especially those who had, in writing on this board, stated their support for the methodology prior to the test, is simply ridiculous and doesn't even deserve a response.   Don't allow yourself to be sucked into the vortex of unfounded platform-bashing.  

Listen to the files at hand, and let's discuss.  



So tell me, what is my agenda?

I know all about the methedology, I was in there, in that discussion.  remember the business about operating level?

On the subject of methodology, I feel there was one flaw at the end of the test.  The test was, "Is there bottom end loss in Pro Tools as compared to the source?"  So, the files (yeah, I need to check out the files) should contain the source, or in this case, the 2 track of the tape mix.  So the listener has the source.  Then listen to all the files against that.  And just to throw a little more of the scientific method into it, the source file should be thrown in with the test files.  Basically, it's a comparison of the source file vs. all of the test files.

And just so we're clear, I've made no claims yet about the test other than the previous paragraph.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work.

-Carter William Humphrey
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 28, 2005, 10:34:02 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 03:18



You quoted Gannon only AFTER I told you that he posted on the first page.  Until then, you didn't know if he had posted.  




Yep, I didn't know.  Forgive me, since there's how many threads and pages of threads spread accross how many forums?  I'm a little slow.

-C
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 28, 2005, 10:57:34 PM
Hey Randy Nicklaus, I think your number of posts here has tripled in this thread alone.  I think I understand your position to be:


This test is definitive
MM is hedging
You like analog better in a perfect world, but if the sonics don't show a sizable difference, then forget about it


I think a lot of people are appointing themselves enforcers of making sure MM's feet are held to the fire. But if this is that important to them, I guess it is a cause in and of itself in thier eyes.

I would prefer to find the cause of the problem in a digital transfer involving 192's myself.  But let me guess what your response will be: 'This is not what the test was about', maybe?

Anyway, I do admire your doggedness.  Everyone has a job to do, and you are doing this one well.  An awful lot of your time is invested here.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 11:16:35 PM
danickstr wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:57

Hey Randy Nicklaus, I think your number of posts here has tripled in this thread alone.  I think I understand your position to be:


This test is definitive
MM is hedging
You like analog better in a perfect world, but if the sonics don't show a sizable difference, then forget about it


I think a lot of people are appointing themselves enforcers of making sure MM's feet are held to the fire. But if this is that important to them, I guess it is a cause in and of itself in thier eyes.

I would prefer to find the cause of the problem in a digital transfer involving 192's myself.  But let me guess what your response will be: 'This is not what the test was about', maybe?

Anyway, I do admire your doggedness.  Everyone has a job to do, and you are doing this one well.  An awful lot of your time is invested here.



One week of my time with extra posts?  That's an awful lot with a long holiday weekend with relatives in town I'd rather hide out from?

Hardly.

Do I think this test is "definitive"?

Steve Albini with his 2" 16 track?

Every detail planed out in advance?

24/96 files for everyone to hear yet not know which is which?

I would say this is pretty darn good.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 11:18:14 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:25

The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 03:08

Carter,

Another of Fletcher's posts on the methodology of the Chicago tests was spot on:  "As I've mentioned to Ron more than a few times, we will have several different people working with varied agendas... so, if we can work out a step by step methodolgy to which everyone involved agrees then you can pretty well plan that the playing field is entirely even as each faction can not disagree with any of the other factions on the method."

Yes, this IS the way that a FAIR, and UNBIASED test takes place.  When you have people there representing both sides of a "discussion".  That's why Fletcher flew in from Boston, Gannon from Denver, all in an effort to have Radar present, take the time to make sure that the Digi system was working properly, etc.  Not to mention the dedication of Ron Steele, the CRC staff and Steve Albini.  This was THE test.  

Prior to it, EVERYONE was on board about the methodology.  EVERYONE.  There were nearly three weeks of posts regarding the methodology alone.  Mixerman, Fletcher, Steve, Ron, Gannon, and all else signed off as to the fairness of the tests.  If you're interested, read the TWO entire threads about methodology.

For anyone to be claiming that this test was nor definitive, especially those who had, in writing on this board, stated their support for the methodology prior to the test, is simply ridiculous and doesn't even deserve a response.   Don't allow yourself to be sucked into the vortex of unfounded platform-bashing.  

Listen to the files at hand, and let's discuss.  



So tell me, what is my agenda?

I know all about the methedology, I was in there, in that discussion.  remember the business about operating level?

On the subject of methodology, I feel there was one flaw at the end of the test.  The test was, "Is there bottom end loss in Pro Tools as compared to the source?"  So, the files (yeah, I need to check out the files) should contain the source, or in this case, the 2 track of the tape mix.  So the listener has the source.  Then listen to all the files against that.  And just to throw a little more of the scientific method into it, the source file should be thrown in with the test files.  Basically, it's a comparison of the source file vs. all of the test files.

And just so we're clear, I've made no claims yet about the test other than the previous paragraph.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work.

-Carter William Humphrey



The "2 track" of the source is one of the 3 files.

There is the analog file, PT file and RADAR file.  

What is the problem with that?

The PT file should be the one, some say, with the severe loss of bottom end.

It should be easy enough to find.

You have a 33% of guessing it.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 11:21:19 PM
danickstr wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:57



I would prefer to find the cause of the problem in a digital transfer involving 192's myself.  But let me guess what your response will be: 'This is not what the test was about', maybe?



So you are saying in spite of the files you heard that there is a problem?

How so?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 28, 2005, 11:30:13 PM
Nick, compared to the # of posts MM has all over the Internet about pro-tools for many years now. Randy's post's are a drop in the bucket, and I think it is obvious and clear to everyone that Randy has no agenda and MM does.

So what if Randy is calling a spade a spade. At least he is doing it with his real name backed up by real and relevant knowledge. If it bugs you, don't read or participate.

Randy has offered the best streamlined insight there is in this thread period, and maybe you should give him the credit he deserves as opposed to bitching about his post count.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 28, 2005, 11:35:17 PM
I only have less that 150 more posts to go to catch Nick.

Maybe I can get Gold status?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: John Ivan on November 29, 2005, 12:11:37 AM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:16

danickstr wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:57

Hey Randy Nicklaus, I think your number of posts here has tripled in this thread alone.  I think I understand your position to be:


This test is definitive
MM is hedging
You like analog better in a perfect world, but if the sonics don't show a sizable difference, then forget about it


I think a lot of people are appointing themselves enforcers of making sure MM's feet are held to the fire. But if this is that important to them, I guess it is a cause in and of itself in thier eyes.

I would prefer to find the cause of the problem in a digital transfer involving 192's myself.  But let me guess what your response will be: 'This is not what the test was about', maybe?

Anyway, I do admire your doggedness.  Everyone has a job to do, and you are doing this one well.  An awful lot of your time is invested here.



One week of my time with extra posts?  That's an awful lot with a long holiday weekend with relatives in town I'd rather hide out from?

Hardly.

Do I think this test is "definitive"?

Steve Albini with his 2" 16 track?

Every detail planed out in advance?

24/96 files for everyone to hear yet not know which is which?

I would say this is pretty darn good.


FWIW, I think it's a "pretty darn good " too, but, I don't like the source for this purpose, and I think the test should have been done without burning CD's. Or at least say, " the results on the cd's are not the same as sitting in a room and listening to the buss" Because it is NOT the same. In a way, we all do this test every day. My mix in Wave Lab sounds great, and it does not sound the same ..

Something is going on here. People are coming close to calling each other liars and spending a lot of time on this. Listen to the files. Say, " the bottom is there on these files" Go find out why sometimes it's not there. If your saying these guys or mixerman is a pile of shit fiber, then say that. There is a lot of nothing moving forward here.

For me personally, while I'm thankful there are people doing things like this, I am amazed at what it does to people. It really puts why I am in this music thing in perspective for me.  It sure ain't what ever this is!! By the time you guys are done with page 476 of this thread, I will have written 10 new songs!!

Jeez.. THE BOTTOM IS THERE!! DO MORE TESTS IF YOU WANT!!! BUT FUCKING PLEASE GROW THE FUCK UP!!



Thank you,, thank you very much''Hey,, try the chicken, I'm here all week""

Ivan..............
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 12:19:53 AM
ivan40 wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 21:11

R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:16

danickstr wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:57

Hey Randy Nicklaus, I think your number of posts here has tripled in this thread alone.  I think I understand your position to be:


This test is definitive
MM is hedging
You like analog better in a perfect world, but if the sonics don't show a sizable difference, then forget about it


I think a lot of people are appointing themselves enforcers of making sure MM's feet are held to the fire. But if this is that important to them, I guess it is a cause in and of itself in thier eyes.

I would prefer to find the cause of the problem in a digital transfer involving 192's myself.  But let me guess what your response will be: 'This is not what the test was about', maybe?

Anyway, I do admire your doggedness.  Everyone has a job to do, and you are doing this one well.  An awful lot of your time is invested here.



One week of my time with extra posts?  That's an awful lot with a long holiday weekend with relatives in town I'd rather hide out from?

Hardly.

Do I think this test is "definitive"?

Steve Albini with his 2" 16 track?

Every detail planed out in advance?

24/96 files for everyone to hear yet not know which is which?

I would say this is pretty darn good.


FWIW, I think it's a "pretty darn good " too, but, I don't like the source for this purpose, and I think the test should have been done without burning CD's. Or at least say, " the results on the cd's are not the same as sitting in a room and listening to the buss" Because it is NOT the same. In a way, we all do this test every day. My mix in Wave Lab sounds great, and it does not sound the same ..

Ivan..............



Who has CD's?  You?  Many of us are listening to the files.

So you are in the camp that the Lavry Blue cannot reproduce the mix properly?

You do know that Mixerman did say that this could be heard on a CD?


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 12:47:06 AM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 04:18

CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:25

The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 03:08

Carter,

Another of Fletcher's posts on the methodology of the Chicago tests was spot on:  "As I've mentioned to Ron more than a few times, we will have several different people working with varied agendas... so, if we can work out a step by step methodolgy to which everyone involved agrees then you can pretty well plan that the playing field is entirely even as each faction can not disagree with any of the other factions on the method."

Yes, this IS the way that a FAIR, and UNBIASED test takes place.  When you have people there representing both sides of a "discussion".  That's why Fletcher flew in from Boston, Gannon from Denver, all in an effort to have Radar present, take the time to make sure that the Digi system was working properly, etc.  Not to mention the dedication of Ron Steele, the CRC staff and Steve Albini.  This was THE test.  

Prior to it, EVERYONE was on board about the methodology.  EVERYONE.  There were nearly three weeks of posts regarding the methodology alone.  Mixerman, Fletcher, Steve, Ron, Gannon, and all else signed off as to the fairness of the tests.  If you're interested, read the TWO entire threads about methodology.

For anyone to be claiming that this test was nor definitive, especially those who had, in writing on this board, stated their support for the methodology prior to the test, is simply ridiculous and doesn't even deserve a response.   Don't allow yourself to be sucked into the vortex of unfounded platform-bashing.  

Listen to the files at hand, and let's discuss.  



So tell me, what is my agenda?

I know all about the methedology, I was in there, in that discussion.  remember the business about operating level?

On the subject of methodology, I feel there was one flaw at the end of the test.  The test was, "Is there bottom end loss in Pro Tools as compared to the source?"  So, the files (yeah, I need to check out the files) should contain the source, or in this case, the 2 track of the tape mix.  So the listener has the source.  Then listen to all the files against that.  And just to throw a little more of the scientific method into it, the source file should be thrown in with the test files.  Basically, it's a comparison of the source file vs. all of the test files.

And just so we're clear, I've made no claims yet about the test other than the previous paragraph.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work.

-Carter William Humphrey



The "2 track" of the source is one of the 3 files.

There is the analog file, PT file and RADAR file.  

What is the problem with that?

The PT file should be the one, some say, with the severe loss of bottom end.

It should be easy enough to find.

You have a 33% of guessing it.


Not quite.  The test is a comparison of a copy vs. the original, yes?  My critique is that the files, as offered, are not a comparison of a source vs. copies, but, in fact the 3 files are comparisons of each other.  Does this invalidate the test? No, certainly not.  However, since this is in the name of "science"  and you're quoting my response to the subject of methodology I'm going to have to mark you down a grade, because the experiment slipped off its hypothesis at the end.

-Carter William Humphrey
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Gannon Kashiwa on November 29, 2005, 12:55:10 AM
Hi all,

Sorry I've been so quiet on this thread (or more accurately, threads).  There has been so much activity and controversy here I thought it best to lay low and stay out of it.  Being a member of the accused party, I didn't want to add anything to the discussion lest someone think I was trying to unduly influence the opinions of others.

That said, I still think the test was very well done, at least from a technical standpoint.  The calibration of the playback systems was impeccable - we used an AP and got the Pro Tools rig to better than tenth of a dB accuracy.  Radar doesn't have a calibration mode, but it came in spot on anyway (must have hi Z inputs or something else), so I can say both systems were pretty much on the money.  

We steered around most of the VCAs on the console and checked it in between mix passes and it didn't drift, so that was good too.  I can't say I have a great deal of experience with the Lavry Blue converters, but the specs are great and I have to believe that specialists in any area are going to produce great sounding products.

So, to me the test was very well set up and carefully engineered.

When it came to transfers and doing the mixing, I was careful to listen in the same place for the transfers.  I didn't raise my hand when Steve asked if anyone heard low end missing because I didn't hear any.  Believe me, when I hit that spacebar for that first Pro Tools transfer I was more than a little nervous, but as soon as the tune got rolling and I got my bearings, it was clear (to me) that the low end was pretty well intact and we weren't missing an octave or something huge like that.  

One thing that was mentioned in the discussion threads afterward is that the transfers should have been done blind as well and I think that should have happened, or maybe the transfers should have been done with no one in the room.  We agreed before hand that the transferred mixes would be listened to blind and that would be the sole basis for our evaluation.  It was only after the fact that the notion was raised that it was only during the transfers that the differences were noticeable and that the re-recording of them obliterated the differences.  I've been fooled too many times by my own biases to not trust anything but blind listening, so I remain skeptical of anything but the blind tests.  Besides, if there is a problem, it needs to be completely measurable and reproducible for me to do anything about it.  I only wish folks had pointed out what they heard while we were all there and prepared to dig into it.  I'm very disappointed that we didn't leave the room with the impressions I thought had been expressed...

So, long story short - I guess I'm satisfied that the transferred files are clear enough evidence that there isn't a large amount of low end loss in Pro Tools.  I'm not a golden ears for sure, but I have done lots of blind listening tests over the years and didn't find what we did to be exhausting or confusing at all.  I picked 11 of the 18 tests correctly, but it was more because of mid-rangy stuff not because there was low end missing.  To me, these seem incredibly small compared to problems I've had in recording sessions...

My guesses?

10-Radar
11-Pro Tools
12-Tape

We'll see how far off I am on Weds!  ;-)

-GK
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 12:59:37 AM
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 21:47

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 04:18

CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:25

The Resonater wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 03:08

Carter,

Another of Fletcher's posts on the methodology of the Chicago tests was spot on:  "As I've mentioned to Ron more than a few times, we will have several different people working with varied agendas... so, if we can work out a step by step methodolgy to which everyone involved agrees then you can pretty well plan that the playing field is entirely even as each faction can not disagree with any of the other factions on the method."

Yes, this IS the way that a FAIR, and UNBIASED test takes place.  When you have people there representing both sides of a "discussion".  That's why Fletcher flew in from Boston, Gannon from Denver, all in an effort to have Radar present, take the time to make sure that the Digi system was working properly, etc.  Not to mention the dedication of Ron Steele, the CRC staff and Steve Albini.  This was THE test.  

Prior to it, EVERYONE was on board about the methodology.  EVERYONE.  There were nearly three weeks of posts regarding the methodology alone.  Mixerman, Fletcher, Steve, Ron, Gannon, and all else signed off as to the fairness of the tests.  If you're interested, read the TWO entire threads about methodology.

For anyone to be claiming that this test was nor definitive, especially those who had, in writing on this board, stated their support for the methodology prior to the test, is simply ridiculous and doesn't even deserve a response.   Don't allow yourself to be sucked into the vortex of unfounded platform-bashing.  

Listen to the files at hand, and let's discuss.  



So tell me, what is my agenda?

I know all about the methedology, I was in there, in that discussion.  remember the business about operating level?

On the subject of methodology, I feel there was one flaw at the end of the test.  The test was, "Is there bottom end loss in Pro Tools as compared to the source?"  So, the files (yeah, I need to check out the files) should contain the source, or in this case, the 2 track of the tape mix.  So the listener has the source.  Then listen to all the files against that.  And just to throw a little more of the scientific method into it, the source file should be thrown in with the test files.  Basically, it's a comparison of the source file vs. all of the test files.

And just so we're clear, I've made no claims yet about the test other than the previous paragraph.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work.

-Carter William Humphrey



The "2 track" of the source is one of the 3 files.

There is the analog file, PT file and RADAR file.  

What is the problem with that?

The PT file should be the one, some say, with the severe loss of bottom end.

It should be easy enough to find.

You have a 33% of guessing it.


Not quite.  The test is a comparison of a copy vs. the original, yes?  My critique is that the files, as offered, are not a comparison of a source vs. copies, but, in fact the 3 files are comparisons of each other.  Does this invalidate the test? No, certainly not.  However, since this is in the name of "science"  and you're quoting my response to the subject of methodology I'm going to have to mark you down a grade, because the experiment slipped off its hypothesis at the end.

-Carter William Humphrey


The what would you consider the source?

If all three files remained static in terms of fader level and pan on the console. 2", PT and RADAR.

Why would then the 2" into the Lavry not be the source?

If all three went unaltered into the Lavry, what now makes the 2" different in terms of the file than it would be "live", in comparison the the other 2?

If that is your claim, then there is no test unless the machines are locked and in another room.

So I take it you are another in the school of the Lavry Blue is not capable of capturing the 2" mix?  So then why is this just  192 issue?

 
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 02:14:33 AM
danickstr wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 22:57


I would prefer to find the cause of the problem in a digital transfer involving 192's myself.  .


Me too.  What problem would that be?

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 02:30:32 AM
BTW, just as a reality check, 58% of the listeners of the 3 files report no eregious bass loss.

Perhaps some of the people who haven't listened yet would like to weigh in.

Despite the trolls and the off topic diversions, the conclusions stll point to the fact that there is no problem with the 192's.  If someone disagrees, here is the place to do so.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 29, 2005, 02:33:10 AM
Wow, Randy. 25 posts to say what I stated in a couple of sentences just 12 wee little hours ago. Let me help you out here.

"Even IF, upon listening, I can tell you with absolute certainty which file is which; clearly, as it stands, the “maid” can’t hear the difference. But can we really take these files as irrefutable proof? Rick, Randy and Rail seem to think so."

We get it. As you can see, I got it well before todays 25 posts. You think these files are irrefutable proof. It's deja vu all over again. And again. And again. Between Rick, Randy, and Ron, this forum doesn't need any more people. I think Digidesign is going to consider advertising here. Or perhaps they already do.

Ron, I won't be using Alsihad other than to make a transfer for the LA people to listen to, so don't worry about my artist's emotional response. Rick, Randy, and Rail have all refused to come. Interesting, no?

24 hours until I post what I think of these files. But, again, I must point you to my statments above. That's why I'm having a little listening party of my own.

And now back to the lunacy some call open discusssion.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 02:38:40 AM
<deleted by RKrizman>
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 29, 2005, 02:39:06 AM
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:33

Rick, Randy, and Rail have all refused to come. Interesting, no?


I didn't refuse to come to your test -- I asked you to identify the huge low end loss that your maid will identify in the posted files...  otherwise it's waste of my time.

You haven't given a single reason why the Chicago transfers don't show the "problem".  I'm still waiting to be given access to the RADAR and Pro Tools sound files -- following your accusations.. the RADAR files should be full bandwidth and the Pro Tools files will have no balls.  These are straight transfers from the Studer to RADAR and Pro Tools -- no Lavry, no SSL, no Nuendo.

Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 11:38

What he heard didn’t translate. Therefore, we can’t put any stock in those files. Like I said, even if I can easily pick them out, this is not the level of the problem that I’ve discussed here.


All that does is prove that your transfer was flawed.  We know for a fact the transfer in Chicago was perfectly executed.

Your claim is that the RADAR transfer should be full bandwidth and the Pro Tools transfer should lack bottom.  This has nothing to do with what the analog sounded like compared to the RADAR and Pro Tools on playback... since neither show a dramatic bottom end loss... your claim that the RADAR is good and Pro Tools is bad is disproved.  Or are you now saying that the RADAR sucks as badly as Pro Tools?  I'm sure you could hire a professional instead of using your assistants as your Pro Tools "experts" to get the transfer done right.

I'm also sick of my posts here being removed even when they're perfectly on topic.. but they may not show you in a favourable light.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 02:54:25 AM
<deleted by RKrizman for civility's sake>
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 02:58:31 AM
Boy, it's been a fun day, hasn't it?

I've been called Mixerman's shill, labeled an agitator, and somehow I mixed a song, and managed to review mixes with an artist and his manager.

and...

I downloaded the files.

There seems to be some significant bottom end missing...

in the test material.  

What happened?  I thought this was supposed to be a test concerning bottom end.  

I like Ministry, Skinny Puppy, and Nine Inch Nails as much as the next guy, but really, this is what we've got?  

Unfortunately, I was so thrown by the content, I decided to give it a fair listen on another day.

-Carter William Humphrey

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 03:06:02 AM
<deleted by RKrizman>
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 03:08:30 AM
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:58


Unfortunately, I was so thrown by the content, I decided to give it a fair listen on another day.

-Carter William Humphrey




Cool, your vote is worth as much as anybody else's.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 03:11:39 AM
Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 05:55

Hi all,

Sorry I've been so quiet on this thread (or more accurately, threads).  There has been so much activity and controversy here I thought it best to lay low and stay out of it.  Being a member of the accused party, I didn't want to add anything to the discussion lest someone think I was trying to unduly influence the opinions of others.



Gannon,

I'd like to thank you for sharing your thoughts on the test.  And clearly, you are a smarter man than I, for staying quiet.  

Now if you could just convince Digidesign that authoring media directly out of Pro Tools would be a good thing....

Cheers,

Carter
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: djui5 on November 29, 2005, 03:47:09 AM
wow, what a shitfest this has turned into.


I agree, if MM can't identify the Pro-Tools file as having a "sierous loss of low end" then no further testing shall be required despite his claims.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 29, 2005, 04:03:57 AM
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:54

Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:33


And now back to the lunacy some call open discusssion.

Enjoy,

Mixerman


If you don't like the quality of the discussion it's your own fault, because it turns out you are the real moderator of this forum.  When I sent a "report to moderator" regarding one of your posts I got a PM from YOU as a reply.  WTF?
You are suggesting Digi is advertising here, but methinks this is actually just a whole publicity stunt for your own internet persona.

NTTAWWT.

Except of course that you're trashing the reputations of a lot of respectable people in the industry.

-R



As a moderator, I can see messages that are "reported". I found your report particularly amusing as you called me a troll for my one post in the past five days. I did not dismiss your report, nor have I deleted any messages (as Rail complains of) in this or any other Chicago thread. If posts are being deleted it's either by Brad Blackwood or Fletcher. The software for these forums has a log that registers any activity by any of the moderators or admins. If I deleted, edited, or adjusted in any way, any post, it would show up in that log and I would most surely be fired for such a move.

I wouldn't dare give any of you the satisfaction of getting fired over this. I'm sure Brad or Fletcher would be happy to confirm this for you all. Or maybe not.

In the interim, may I suggest you just gang rape me, and then complain to the police that I was wearing provocative clothing. Too rich.

I expect that this post, along with the other accusatory and off-topic posts will be toast come morning.

RKrizman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 00:06



Maybe your condescending tone is a clue as to why nobody wants to accept your socalled invitation.  Do you really not get this?

-R


Pot. Kettle. Black.

The only people that haven't accepted are the three people that have put up more than 75% of the posts in this thread since mine this morning.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Goodnight Gracie.

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 04:08:04 AM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 05:59



The what would you consider the source?

If all three files remained static in terms of fader level and pan on the console. 2", PT and RADAR.

Why would then the 2" into the Lavry not be the source?

If all three went unaltered into the Lavry, what now makes the 2" different in terms of the file than it would be "live", in comparison the the other 2?

If that is your claim, then there is no test unless the machines are locked and in another room.

So I take it you are another in the school of the Lavry Blue is not capable of capturing the 2" mix?  So then why is this just  192 issue?




The source in this case is the 2 track of the 2".  The test files are Pro Tools, RADAR and yes, the 2" as a control (kind like when they give some test subjects the placebo in drug experiments).  Now the question question becomes, what is the difference of these three test files to the original?  This creates its own set of problem because some joker is going to null the 3 files to the original, which will reveal the 2" test file.

Regarding the Lavry, I can't comment, I haven't used it, I know nothing about it.  Also, until Mixerman can show me what the socalled problem is with HD, my current stance is that there is no problem with it.  

There, I took a position.  I guess I can't be Mixerman's shill anymore.

-Carter William Humphrey
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 29, 2005, 04:52:12 AM
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:08

 This creates its own set of problem because some joker is going to null the 3 files to the original, which will reveal the 2" test file.


There, I took a position.  I guess I can't be Mixerman's shill anymore.

-Carter William Humphrey


I don't think the two digital files would null.  There are differences in them caused by the two sets of AD converters.  The files are limited in accuracy by the limits of those converters, in and out of both Pro Tools and Radar.  So the analog is suffering one conversion--at the Lavery only.  Pro Tools and Radar get converted 3 times.

One would have to have greater experience than I to identify the three files by their digital sonic fingerprint, since there is no glaring low end problem that mixerman has written about.

I do agree with your post about the type of material.  A big Reggae grove would have been an easier test for lowend.

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 29, 2005, 05:05:49 AM
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:33

"Even IF, upon listening, I can tell you with absolute certainty which file is which; clearly, as it stands, the ?maid? can?t hear the difference. But can we really take these files as irrefutable proof? Rick, Randy and Rail seem to think so."




I don't think we should take this as absolute proof, anymore than we should have taken your word as absolute proof.  I will hand it to these guys in that they did a good job in structuring the test.  It seems like it was open to all who wanted to attend.  AFIK, there were no secrets in the methodology, there was plenty of give and take, and there were lots of people on hand to make sure things went well on a tech level.  Can you say the same for your test two years ago?  It doesn't seem like your LA test is going to be very open and fair, either.  It looks more like an invitation to an ambush for those high and lofty pros that are included.

For the record, I don't doubt that you heard a low end loss during a transfer.  I just don't think the answer is as simple as "Pro Tools blows".  It could have been something as simple as a 2/3 pin hot issue.  When speaker polarity is reversed, many hear a loss of low end.  (Anybody want to test that?)  I'm not sure how carefully you retraced the steps in your test.


Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 05:09:46 AM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 09:52



I don't think the two digital files would null.  There are differences in them caused by the two sets of AD converters.  The files are limited in accuracy by the limits of those converters, in and out of both Pro Tools and Radar.  So the analog is suffering one conversion--at the Lavery only.  Pro Tools and Radar get converted 3 times.




Steve, was a hypothetical approach to the presentation of the files that didn't happen.  I'm too tired to go into it again, you'll just have to read the upstream posts.

-Carter
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 29, 2005, 08:06:32 AM
FWIW, Mixerman has not edited or removed any posts on REP, nor would he unless asked. We can stop with the posts implying he's doing so.

I have removed exactly one post from these threads in the last few days, and it was from someone purely trolling another poster - copying his post word for word then changing some of it to paint him in a bad light. Anything else removed has been Fletcher's call, and he knows what he's doing. If you had a post removed and don't know why, you should PM him - further cluttering of the thread will only make his job more time consuming and reduce the chance of his telling you 'why'.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on November 29, 2005, 09:26:41 AM
FYI Ron... that was me.

This thread is about an inch away from being moved to the saloon... so let's try to stay civil or down it goes.

This is NOT the MARSH, and while I'm not paying a whole lot of attention to this thread, I have been getting both "Reported Messages" and "PM"s about it [which is kind of annoying].

Also, just so y'all know... if you wanna bitch about MM to me [which I sincerely wish you wouldn't], if you do it in a "Reported Message" MM [as the administrator for MARSH] was the privledge of reading it... so I wouldn't recommend saying anything there you wouldn't say to him on the forum, and I wouldn't recommend saying anything on the forum that you wouldn't say to someone's face.

...and now back to our regularly scheduled pogrom...


[nobody ever seems to get that bit which is why I included a link... it's an Abbie Hoffman quote, one of my favorites]
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fig on November 29, 2005, 10:49:27 AM
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 20:28



give a flying fig about any subsequent test?






Alright,

I have tried to stay out of this, but if you call me by name...

My understanding is that MM did not use Nuendo in his original method.  I thought he was printing back to PT.

Either way, I am bummed that no one burned a CD of the procedings - even just a Masterlink with stock converters.  

To me, all the use of Lavry's, Nuendo and higher sampling rates makes the Chicago test different (in MANY ways) from MM's previous experiences.  Invalid? no - different? absolutely.

Neither here nor there (no pun), but different nonetheless.

Research requires a significant amount of data gathering.  Remember when the earth was flat?  It was not even up for discussion!!

One test does not a conclusion make, folks.

I won't listen to the files - as the internet is full of misinformation - and sending audio through it makes lies out of the truth, a sacrilege in my profession.

I think people had the same arguments when stereo came out "there's a loss, no there isn't, mine's better, no mine is..."

Quite comical, since you asked.

Warm analog regards,

Fig

[editted for spelling error]
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 29, 2005, 10:58:31 AM
fig wrote:

"as the internet is full of misinformation"


And that is exactly why we did the test.

I guess it's easier for some to just believe anything they read on the Internet, as opposed to listening what is on the Internet.

There is download time involved, so that makes it harder for some to get
a handle on this test.

Thanks for the post fig.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: hargerst on November 29, 2005, 11:43:50 AM
Fortunately for me, I have no pony running in this race.

It just seems to me if the "problem" is THAT obvious to Mixerman, the Chicago tests did not bring it out, for whatever reasons.

So, you create some tests to where Mixerman's perceived problem is apparent, and then you figure out what's wrong. It's gotta be hardware, software, or operator error.

I don't give a shit about the test results, since I don't use any of the stuff you guys are arguing about. But the name-calling shit should really stop.  This is a VERY small community.  We don't need to be fighting about this.

Look around; the music business is a very small boat - and it's sinking.  We need to be patching leaks, not bangin' on each other.

Randy, Fletcher, Rick, Bob O., and Mixerman, I consider to be friends. Rail, I've respected for years.  Please, please, don't make this a personal thing.  As you get older, it's the friends you make along the way that become your most important memories. Play nice.

My best guess?  IF the Chicago tests (in which the entire audio chain was carefully setup and monitored) did not reveal the problem, then I suspect there is a flaw in the signal chain that Mixerman has been using.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Your Ad Here! on November 29, 2005, 11:48:03 AM
I think mixerman's suggestion that he be ganged raped by the participants here is lewd and immoral. Will this opportunist ever stop??

Seriously though, he's passionate about PT's, that's evident. Will those at the test who later spoke up in agreement with his original hypothesis- that PTs looses low end, give their opinion about whether the files demonstrate this loss (Pts vs. Radar)? If Steve and Fletcher have already posted this, I appologize - I can't stomach reading all the posts to find out.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 12:15:28 PM
Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 04:03

As a moderator, I can see messages that are "reported". I found your report particularly amusing as you called me a troll for my one post in the past five days.


Harvey's right, there's no reason to make any of this personal, and I apologise for overreacting to all this.

As far as this thread goes, it's been clear from the outset that any references to another test are off-topic and belong elsewhere.  Fletcher even posted a sticky to point the way.  You yourself promised to take it off the internet.  

Here's my invitation to you.  Have a listen to this current set of files.

-R

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 29, 2005, 12:23:11 PM
Quote:

It just seems to me if the "problem" is THAT obvious to Mixerman, the Chicago tests did not bring it out, for whatever reasons.

So, you create some tests to where Mixerman's perceived problem is apparent, and then you figure out what's wrong. It's gotta be hardware, software, or operator error.



Harvey, we obviously screwed the whole test up. We didn't add the "for whatever reason" part into the methodology. Sorry for that and all the confusion it has created here.

So how then, should we go about creating some tests that will expose "Mixerman's perceived problem?"

Oh wait, he's going to do that and get back to us to clear everything up.

What I don't understand is, MM has claimed he has recreated his "perceived problem" in many demonstrations, so why do it again?

Shouldn't we just believe him, or is it going to be different this time?

I guess will just have to wait and find out when he releases his findings on his forum.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 12:29:38 PM
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:33

Wow, Randy. 25 posts to say what I stated in a couple of sentences just 12 wee little hours ago. Let me help you out here.

"Even IF, upon listening, I can tell you with absolute certainty which file is which; clearly, as it stands, the “maid” can’t hear the difference. But can we really take these files as irrefutable proof? Rick, Randy and Rail seem to think so."

We get it. As you can see, I got it well before todays 25 posts. You think these files are irrefutable proof. It's deja vu all over again. And again. And again. Between Rick, Randy, and Ron, this forum doesn't need any more people. I think Digidesign is going to consider advertising here. Or perhaps they already do.

Ron, I won't be using Alsihad other than to make a transfer for the LA people to listen to, so don't worry about my artist's emotional response. Rick, Randy, and Rail have all refused to come. Interesting, no?

24 hours until I post what I think of these files. But, again, I must point you to my statments above. That's why I'm having a little listening party of my own.

And now back to the lunacy some call open discusssion.

Enjoy,

Mixerman


YOU are commenting on the amount of posts in a day?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 12:34:13 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:52

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:08

 This creates its own set of problem because some joker is going to null the 3 files to the original, which will reveal the 2" test file.


There, I took a position.  I guess I can't be Mixerman's shill anymore.

-Carter William Humphrey


I don't think the two digital files would null.  There are differences in them caused by the two sets of AD converters.  The files are limited in accuracy by the limits of those converters, in and out of both Pro Tools and Radar.  So the analog is suffering one conversion--at the Lavery only.  Pro Tools and Radar get converted 3 times.

One would have to have greater experience than I to identify the three files by their digital sonic fingerprint, since there is no glaring low end problem that mixerman has written about.

I do agree with your post about the type of material.  A big Reggae grove would have been an easier test for lowend.

Steve



The 2" was converted ONCE through the Lavry to Nuendo.

RADAR was a conversion of the 2" and then to the Lavry.  So is that not only 2 conversions?

PT the same.

The 2" was "live" to Lavry, then "Live" to PT to Lavry, then "Live" to RADAR to Lavry.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 12:42:45 PM
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 05:06

FWIW, Mixerman has not edited or removed any posts on REP, nor would he unless asked. We can stop with the posts implying he's doing so.

I have removed exactly one post from these threads in the last few days, and it was from someone purely trolling another poster - copying his post word for word then changing some of it to paint him in a bad light. Anything else removed has been Fletcher's call, and he knows what he's doing. If you had a post removed and don't know why, you should PM him - further cluttering of the thread will only make his job more time consuming and reduce the chance of his telling you 'why'.


I am not sure this is accurate based on one issue I witnessed.

Last week(end?) there was a post by Groucho (gaucho?) that I noticed and then it was gone, within minutes of being posted.  This was close to midnight west coast.  I had planned on a response but when I came back to it - gone.

I made a post about a suspicion of who removed it, mentioned I hoped it wasn't the case.

I added at the bottom of my post "maybe someone is pruning their Internet image".  Interesting enough, that line was removed, but the rest of my post was there.


It happened right there, right then at 3:00AM on the east coast.

I never said a word about it but this would be the time to bring this up.

No big deal here, but I saw it plain as night.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 29, 2005, 01:50:19 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 11:42

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 05:06

FWIW, Mixerman has not edited or removed any posts on REP, nor would he unless asked. We can stop with the posts implying he's doing so.

I have removed exactly one post from these threads in the last few days, and it was from someone purely trolling another poster - copying his post word for word then changing some of it to paint him in a bad light. Anything else removed has been Fletcher's call, and he knows what he's doing. If you had a post removed and don't know why, you should PM him - further cluttering of the thread will only make his job more time consuming and reduce the chance of his telling you 'why'.


I am not sure this is accurate based on one issue I witnessed.

Well, you are incorrect - I looked at the action log all the way back to early November with no action by Mixerman.

When I tell you he hasn't edited or deleted any posts, I mean that. If you can give me the exact date Gaucho's post was removed I can tell you exactly who did it, but I can definitely tell you it was not Mixerman. Please drop the conspiracy theory about it.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: groucho on November 29, 2005, 02:09:19 PM
Thanks for addressing this Brad. It was Monday the 21st - early; about 3 am or so.

I'd be very interested to know both who deleted it and - more importantly - WHY. It wasn't exactly vital info, but neither was it anything that warrented deletion.

Fletcher has already told me he didn't delete it. But that's about as far as it got.

I understand that a healthy forum needs active moderation - which entails deleting posts now and then. The circumstances under which several posts have vanished (or been "edited") - and NOT just mine - in the last few days were decidedly suspicious however. And I think that's where the "conspiracy theories" are stemming from.

I'd welcome ANY kind of explaination on this one.

-Chris
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 02:13:17 PM
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 10:50

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 11:42

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 05:06

FWIW, Mixerman has not edited or removed any posts on REP, nor would he unless asked. We can stop with the posts implying he's doing so.

I have removed exactly one post from these threads in the last few days, and it was from someone purely trolling another poster - copying his post word for word then changing some of it to paint him in a bad light. Anything else removed has been Fletcher's call, and he knows what he's doing. If you had a post removed and don't know why, you should PM him - further cluttering of the thread will only make his job more time consuming and reduce the chance of his telling you 'why'.


I am not sure this is accurate based on one issue I witnessed.

Well, you are incorrect - I looked at the action log all the way back to early November with no action by Mixerman.

When I tell you he hasn't edited or deleted any posts, I mean that. If you can give me the exact date Gaucho's post was removed I can tell you exactly who did it, but I can definitely tell you it was not Mixerman. Please drop the conspiracy theory about it.



Understood.  And done with the subject other than your question.

Just to add there was one or more lines in the original post.  I believe I also mentioned the time as being late on the east coast.

Message info below.  

message  #107563
Nov 21 1:01

<<e: The Chicago test results... [message #107563 is a reply to message #107029 ] Mon, 21 November 2005 01:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
R.Nicklaus is currently online R.Nicklaus
Messages: 313
Registered: May 2004
Location: Left Coast
Active Member

Here's a question -

I just read a post by someone named Groucho or close, responded to another, came back and it was gone.

It was not a pro Mixerman post, but not off the hook or anything.

Is someone deleting posts?>>
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Slipperman on November 29, 2005, 02:33:41 PM
Ya know....

I made a nice little self-effacing SM post earlier in this thread in the forlorn hope that some of you silly freaks here could get your minds around the concept that this may be a very real problem that potentially AFFECTS work in progress during the making of records. And that the problem isn't necessarily going to be represented properly by mixdown to a DIGITAL MEDIUM Rolling Eyes, but can be heard and FELT in a room....AND sure as fuck isn't worth getting wildly bent outta shape over from a 'long game' perspective, given the typical 'end product' delivery systems common today.

Of course, I underestimated the absolutely pitiful depths of moribund fascination with semantics, hilariously transparent product partisanship, ego-fueled grudge matches and, of most tellingly.....  what appears to be an alarming amount of free time for audio engineers purportedly making a living as such in at least 4 major US markets, judging from the location flags.

This subject is like a fucking root canal, but here's my final volley. I promise. I'm over it.

Here's my story.

We're still duping many hundreds of songs per year here from 2" to various DAW's.

We're still feeling the baby is going out with the bathwater sonically. Yep... A lot of the phenomenon is SOMEHOW felt in the bottom octave. How that happens EXACTLY is immaterial to the central issue.

That being. It's still happening.

I have been describing it in my VERY OCCASIONAL internet posts on the subject as" "A sense of Loss of power and dimension", "2d",...

Whatever....  Call it anything ya want.... But if you can stand in a control room after tracking a record on the farfields for a few weeks and YOU can't hear it when yer clients SURE AS FUCK CAN.... Well. I'd say that's YOUR problem.

I would definitely prefer that they DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING different in the pre/post dupe playbacks. It is tedious and time consuming to attempt to explain away.

But, in the long game... there are too many duping rigs(6 total to be exact, one of them a PERMANENT DIRECT 12ft connection to a dedicated duping 2" deck), too many engineers working here(over a dozen staff in regular rotation) experiencing the same thing, and as a community of AE's... I suspect we have too many years doing this particular task to really get anything more than a ironic smirk from the couple of posters casting smug aspersions that it's all been pilot error EVERY TIME.

As an aside. I don't give a fuck about harping on Digidesign products in particular.

Never have.

I ceased appreciating that particular manufacturer years ago for very different reasons than sonics. Didn't stop me from owning 2 complete rigs from both of their last 2 generations of products. They are not our main platform here... but we use them most every day. And, as far as I can tell... their gear is hardly exempt from the subject at hand. In either of those generations.

I don't know about RADAR. I don't want to. Wrong product for how I need to work.

Yep. My situation is still the same here EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Work in 2" for basics.

Everybody happy.

Dupe song to DAW. Any fucking DAW. With any AD's I've ever used, with any clock as well.

Sometimes, some people less happy.

But that's not what's going on here... on the R/E/P.... RIGHT?

Because upon careful perusal of this particular thread after about a week of two of posts... it looks to me like a small passel of regulars here wanna build a big shit-storm bonfire based on the wording of Mixermans various presentations on this subject in the past and roast him on it...

Great.

Wonderful.

No really.....

PERFECT.

It is, after all.... PSW... Longtime internet home of shit-stirring AE egomaniacs.

Like me.

And Mixerman.

And Rail Jon Rogut. Especially this guy. I love this guy. He's got his finger glued on the "Mayday" button.... when he takes it off, he uses it to point at somebody. Sure hope nobody ever breaks it off and sticks it up his ass. That would be terrible. Might be tough to write software code with no working fingers.

And Ron Steele. Who(as a certain longstanding PSW anonymous poster) has been fucking with MM(not that this is a BAD thing) since the pyramids were in R&D. Not sure where it started. Don't care. Just nice to see somebody torturing MM on a regular basis.

And Rick Krizman. Who got into some crazy fistcuffs with MM back in the fucking Bronze age of RecPit if memory serves me.... and though Rick DOES NOT appear to believe in his own infallibly(which I find encouraging around here), he is DECIDEDLY not the kind of guy you want to cut off in the Burger King line.... as he WILL FIND your house and piss on your azaleas... EVERY DAY. From now. Till eternity.

And Fletcher. Ever the paragon of tact and diplomacy. I owe him money. He has fronted me gear. God bless him and all his works. May his enemies perish in a lake of eternal fire.

And in a somewhat muted, but still fairly perceptible fashion....

Even George Massenberg.

Who has been known to drop lines about certain subjects, and name names as well.... on public forums.... that I WOULDN'T DREAM of dropping.

And I'm(theoretically) anonymous, mind you.

Yep...


I'm thinking MM can take care of himself in the face of these drunken, irate, torchweilding villagers.... and, given the sum total efforts of the rabble I've seen assembled here, I'm thinking it's probably been a modestly amusing experience for him so far.

But as for the DAW duping thing.....

The problem exists.

It remains.

I hear it.

My staff hears it.

On awful occasion...Our clients hear it.

And when they do. It sucks.

Of course.... The following is not a new argument...

But WE ALL KNOW THAT:

When the next generation of AD/DA's come out...

And the same manufacturers who are now claiming that their products can ENTIRELY CAPTURE the output of a solid 2" analog recording will then be explaining how the new stuff is a BIG IMPROVEMENT sonically over the last generation...

and....

The jig will start anew.

And no... I don't give a fuck WHAT MM claimed as far as the numbers go.... He has described a common problem in my day. I glad somebody else is hearing this.... If ya don't like his description... Log on and resume kicking his ass.

I suspect it's gonna be about as effective as beating a masochist with a leather strap.


SM.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Jules on November 29, 2005, 02:39:13 PM
Jules wuz here
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on November 29, 2005, 02:46:48 PM
Slipperman that is a borderline rude [edit: actually it is not rude...it is dead on...not sure if you edited it or not, but upon rereading it, it is brilliant] and off-color but funny post.  R Nicklaus, I can relate to getting away from the fam at the holidays, not that I don't love my fam, but...I hear ya.  I am not as familiar with MM posts re protools, but I don't doubt that he has strong opinions that may have touched nerves.  I like what HG said, and that is that we should be friends here and work to get a resolution that is amicable.  I hope that will be the case.

Lets all try to keep our integrity intact and not go for blood, even if that was not the spirit previously.  Seems like a good crowd overall. Smile We are all subject to exaggeration based on an intense familiarity with material.  I know I am.  And then you hear it 3 weeks later and it sounds fine, and 6 weeks later and it sounds off.  Human psyche is like that.  We are prone to have different responsed to different material.  PTHD 192 in its current form as a bounce will always sound different than the 2" and that is just the way it is.  I don't think that is being questioned.  The low end thing may be the wrong direction, and maybe MM will come to that conclusion and change his tack.  I don't know.  But I will wait and see.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 02:49:40 PM
Slipperman,

My only comment to your otherwise insightful post is this.

It seems at this point when some are not agreeing with Mixerman, they are "drunken, irate, torchweilding villagers".

Nobody is making these kinds of claims about people who support Mixerman's point of view.

May I add that it seems that everyone wants to bust other people's balls, yet don't like to have their own busted.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: peyemp on November 29, 2005, 03:22:21 PM
Am I the only one here who picks up that all 3 systems will sound the same over the telephone ?  And by extension of that example, that all 3 will be colored by another device...   Not to say a Lavry is anything like a telephone line,,, Lavry's sound excellent, though not without coloration.  And my experiences with Nuendo have been punctuated by moments of 'i don't like what this is doing' to sounds.  

To the people who claim that this is the end-all-be-all of tests, and that MM and others have to eat shit because of this one test; we got your point.  Please stop the spamming and repeated misquoting....  Let's hear what MM, SA, Fletcher, etc., have to say without defaming them anymore....  

Can we do that ?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 29, 2005, 03:28:49 PM
peyemp wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 15:22

Let's hear what MM, SA, Fletcher, etc., have to say without defaming them anymore....   Can we do that ?


I'd agree that "defamation" is unfortunate and undesirable.  It appears that Slipperman disagrees.  God forbid we cross an Internet Audio Legend.  (Oops.  Did I just defame?  Well, fuck me if my Internet Audio Legend Cheat Sheet stops right after the "M"s.)

I would suggest this:  nobody, and I mean nobody who attends the "LA Transfer" test should agree to the sufficiency of said test ahead of time.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 29, 2005, 03:30:29 PM
Brad,

FYI, here is the text of the deleted Groucho post.  I got such a kick out of it, I pasted it to my clipboard pre-deletion:


----Mixerman wrote:
Quote:

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.


Steve Albini wrote:
Quote:

I haven't got the means to play the files back in the studio,


Fletcher wrote:
Quote:


I don't know about Steve... but I don't have any way of playing the files that is convenient...


LOL. Who knew that playing back a few 14-second wav files would be such a challenge for professional engineers...?

Chris
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 29, 2005, 03:33:25 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 09:34

Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:52

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:08

 This creates its own set of problem because some joker is going to null the 3 files to the original, which will reveal the 2" test file.


There, I took a position.  I guess I can't be Mixerman's shill anymore.

-Carter William Humphrey


I don't think the two digital files would null.  There are differences in them caused by the two sets of AD converters.  The files are limited in accuracy by the limits of those converters, in and out of both Pro Tools and Radar.  So the analog is suffering one conversion--at the Lavery only.  Pro Tools and Radar get converted 3 times.

One would have to have greater experience than I to identify the three files by their digital sonic fingerprint, since there is no glaring low end problem that mixerman has written about.

I do agree with your post about the type of material.  A big Reggae grove would have been an easier test for lowend.

Steve



The 2" was converted ONCE through the Lavry to Nuendo.

RADAR was a conversion of the 2" and then to the Lavry.  So is that not only 2 conversions?

PT the same.

The 2" was "live" to Lavry, then "Live" to PT to Lavry, then "Live" to RADAR to Lavry.


I'm not trying to be picky but, you are flat wrong here.  When you record there is an AD conversion going into Pro Tools/Radar, and then a DA coversion on playback to the console.  Then it goes to the Lavry.  Three.  I don't see any other way to count conversions, unless you want to count the conversion out of the Lavry, or whatever converter is used for final playback.  Then it would be 4 for Pro Tools/Radar, and 2 for analog.

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on November 29, 2005, 03:34:44 PM
I'm just going to throw this out there and see if any of you find this a plausible explanation for this phenomenon:

As stated in my original post (on the poll thread), When I listened to these 3 files, the one track that stood out consistently was track 11, which I thought suffered more in the mid range as well as "sounding like" it had gone through an extra stage of conversion as it didn't have the "immediacy" of the others. That is why I guessed it was the Pro Tools.

If you really listen to track 12 (which I thought was the analog), you can really hear the room and the impression is that "more air is being moved", giving it a bigger and fatter sound. There are no extra bass frequencies present, but because of the more accurate room reflections (predominantly heard in the mid range), you get a feeling of sub harmonic "fullness".

Every time you pass through another stage of A/D conversion, you lose the accuracy of the subtle room reflections, and the sound becomes a little more "closed in" and smaller.

If the 192 converters aren't as accurate as the RADAR converters, this loss of "realism" will be more pronounced in Pro Tools. The initial "in room" sound of analog versus Pro Tools would be quite significant in this respect, but subsequent conversion through additional digital conversion would minimize the differences, leaving the impression that there is not a big difference as the playing field "gets evened out".

Regardless of whether I am correct in my guesses on which track is which, do you think this may potentially explain some of the problem?

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: groucho on November 29, 2005, 03:34:47 PM
Actually, Resonator, that was one of the OTHER posts I had deleted - by Fletcher. He deemed it "irrelevent". Funny, that...

The one in question - on the 21st - was a different post altogether. Though equally benign.

By the way, I'm only chipping in here because OTHERS brought it up. In case anyone accuses me of trying to "hog the spotlight" or something. There seems to be some massive historical revisionism occuring on all fronts at the moment. Razz

Although I must say, I understand why. For all these folks who are convinced that the "low end" problem is as real as day, it must be terribly frustrating that, 3 years later, they still can't seem to actually PROVE it.Smile And in fact the one test (which no one has managed to discredit - in the case of Mixerman, he hasn't even tried. He's just ignoring it) that's taken place quite obviously DISproves it.

Gotta be frustrating.Smile Hense the obfuscation and personality wars that are currently fogging the radar.

No pun intended.

Chris

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 03:38:46 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 12:33

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 09:34

Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:52

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:08

 This creates its own set of problem because some joker is going to null the 3 files to the original, which will reveal the 2" test file.


There, I took a position.  I guess I can't be Mixerman's shill anymore.

-Carter William Humphrey


I don't think the two digital files would null.  There are differences in them caused by the two sets of AD converters.  The files are limited in accuracy by the limits of those converters, in and out of both Pro Tools and Radar.  So the analog is suffering one conversion--at the Lavery only.  Pro Tools and Radar get converted 3 times.

One would have to have greater experience than I to identify the three files by their digital sonic fingerprint, since there is no glaring low end problem that mixerman has written about.

I do agree with your post about the type of material.  A big Reggae grove would have been an easier test for lowend.

Steve



The 2" was converted ONCE through the Lavry to Nuendo.

RADAR was a conversion of the 2" and then to the Lavry.  So is that not only 2 conversions?

PT the same.

The 2" was "live" to Lavry, then "Live" to PT to Lavry, then "Live" to RADAR to Lavry.


I'm not trying to be picky but, you are flat wrong here.  When you record there is an AD conversion going into Pro Tools/Radar, and then a DA coversion on playback to the console.  Then it goes to the Lavry.  Three.  I don't see any other way to count conversions, unless you want to count the conversion out of the Lavry, or whatever converter is used for final playback.  Then it would be 4 for Pro Tools/Radar, and 2 for analog.

Steve




Got it.  Understood.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 03:46:54 PM
blueboy wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 12:34

I'm just going to throw this out there and see if any of you find this a plausible explanation for this phenomenon:

As stated in my original post (on the poll thread), When I listened to these 3 files, the one track that stood out consistently was track 11, which I thought suffered more in the mid range as well as "sounding like" it had gone through an extra stage of conversion as it didn't have the "immediacy" of the others. That is why I guessed it was the Pro Tools.

If you really listen to track 12 (which I thought was the analog), you can really hear the room and the impression is that "more air is being moved", giving it a bigger and fatter sound. There are no extra bass frequencies present, but because of the more accurate room reflections (predominantly heard in the mid range), you get a feeling of sub harmonic "fullness".

Every time you pass through another stage of A/D conversion, you lose the accuracy of the subtle room reflections, and the sound becomes a little more "closed in" and smaller.

If the 192 converters aren't as accurate as the RADAR converters, this loss of "realism" will be more pronounced in Pro Tools. The initial "in room" sound of analog versus Pro Tools would be quite significant in this respect, but subsequent conversion through additional digital conversion would minimize the differences, leaving the impression that there is not a big difference as the playing field "gets even out".

Regardless of whether I am correct in my guesses on which track is which, do you think this may potentially explain some of the problem?

JL



This comes around to something I asked before.

If some feel this is so pronounced on the 192, yet the Lavry and Nuendo don't show such a pronouncement, how can anyone single out the 192?

This seems to look worse for the Lavry Blue and Nuendo combo than the 192 - if the pronounced differences were not captured.

This is the only way to look at it IF one believes the problem was live but not captured.

It's not like the final ADC is not respected.

It's either one or the other.

Let me add, however, that Fletcher did say that during the blind playback he did detect a day and night difference between the RADAR 48 and PT 48 files.  Very day and night.

That does add an extra wrinkle to the "mix".  These were the same files we all have (or should by now).
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 29, 2005, 03:51:52 PM
"...and now back to our regularly scheduled pogrom..."


What are you really trying to say Fletcher?



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on November 29, 2005, 04:14:36 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 12:46

This comes around to something I asked before.

If some feel this is so pronounced on the 192, yet the Lavry and Nuendo don't show such a pronouncement, how can anyone single out the 192?

This seems to look worse for the Lavry Blue and Nuendo combo than the 192 - if the pronounced differences were not captured.

This is the only way to look at it IF one believes the problem was live but not captured.

It's not like the final ADC is not respected.

It's either one or the other.


The original transfer was to 2 different converters, so the difference is caused by the accuracy (or lack thereof) in the converters during the original transfer.

The Lavry was obviously accurate enough to capture the subtle differences between the files, so I'm not saying it was a problem at all. The loss incurred by the Lavry was consistent across all three files, so a comparison is still valid.

I'm saying that due the fact that "any" additional conversion took place after the original transfer, there will be some inevitable loss, and therefore the difference will be less pronounced "outside of the room".

This loss will happen with any conversion, and some people may or may not be as "sensitive" to this loss. By the time the file makes it to the general public in a lossy codec format, there is really no point for debate on this issue as the variations in playback equipment etc. would make any comparison pointless.

But I can imagine that for someone that is sensitive to this loss of realism, it is a big issue, and will more pronounced "in the room" (when comparing against the original), and to a lesser degree on subsequent lower resolution copies.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 04:27:42 PM
blueboy wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 13:14

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 12:46

This comes around to something I asked before.

If some feel this is so pronounced on the 192, yet the Lavry and Nuendo don't show such a pronouncement, how can anyone single out the 192?

This seems to look worse for the Lavry Blue and Nuendo combo than the 192 - if the pronounced differences were not captured.

This is the only way to look at it IF one believes the problem was live but not captured.

It's not like the final ADC is not respected.

It's either one or the other.


The original transfer was to 2 different converters, so the difference is caused by the accuracy (or lack thereof) in the converters during the original transfer.

The Lavry was obviously accurate enough to capture the subtle differences between the files, so I'm not saying it was a problem at all. The loss incurred by the Lavry was consistent across all three files, so a comparison is still valid.

I'm saying that due the fact that "any" additional conversion took place after the original transfer, there will be some inevitable loss, and therefore the difference will be less pronounced "outside of the room".

This loss will happen with any conversion, and some people may or may not be as "sensitive" to this loss. By the time the file makes it to the general public in a lossy codec format, there is really no point for debate on this issue as the variations in playback equipment etc. would make any comparison pointless.

But I can imagine that for someone that is sensitive to this loss of realism, it is a big issue, and will more pronounced "in the room", and to a lesser degree on subsequent lower resolution copies.

JL




Right - but everyone here should be listening to the same resolution in this test.

In this case only a few things could be the case.

1.  The problem didn't exist and the Lavry/Nuendo combo captured that fact.

2.  The problem did exist but the Lavry/Nuendo combo had close to the same bottom end loss as the 192, thereby rendering the bottom end on all files very close.

3.  The problem did exist but the Lavry/Nuendo combo added the lost bottom back to only the 192 files.

4.  Digital conversion is the great equalizer and everyone making alternate mixes of their projects through digital conversion is fooling themselves as none of those subtle changes make it into the file.  The bass up mix?  Useless.

Please jump in here anyone!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on November 29, 2005, 04:51:27 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 13:27

Right - but everyone here should be listening to the same resolution in this test.

In this case only a few things could be the case.

1.  The problem didn't exist and the Lavry/Nuendo combo captured that fact.

2.  The problem did exist but the Lavry/Nuendo combo had close to the same bottom end loss as the 192, thereby rendering the bottom end on all files very close.

3.  The problem did exist but the Lavry/Nuendo combo added the lost bottom back to only the 192 files.

4.  Digital conversion is the great equalizer and everyone making alternate mixes of their projects through digital conversion is fooling themselves as none of those subtle changes make it into the file.  The bass up mix?  Useless.

Please jump in here anyone!


Maybe you are misinterpreting what I am suggesting. I don't know if this is the case or not, but what I am saying is that this "may" not be a "measurable bass loss", but may be a "perceived bass loss" due to the accuracy of digital conversion.

If the subtleties of room reflections are lost during conversion, there "may" be the perception that the low end is not as "fat" or "full" as the original.

Every time you go through a conversion stage, accuracy is lost, no matter how high the quality of your converter.

The original transfer was essentially comparing the "accuracy" of 2 different converters. When playing these files back in the room against the original, the RADAR more accurately represented the original signal than Pro Tools. This difference may be "obvious" to some, but not as important to others. I don't know that actual  listening conditions that were present at the Chicago tests, but I could see the possibility that this type of problem might be hard to identify in that situation with a large number of people etc.

The files that we are comparing were all affected by an equal amount of inevitable accuracy loss through the Lavry/Nuendo system. Any loss was consistent, so a comparison is still valid. But if the problem is caused by conversion, the accuracy of all files will be reduced slightly, and the analog may not "stand out" as much in comparison to the others after the initial conversion to digital. Maybe the inital conversion from analog to digital incurs a greater loss than subsequent digital conversions. I know for a fact that this is the case when digitizing analog video. The most "error" occurs during the initial conversion, with far less degradation occurring in subsequent conversions. Maybe it is relevant to audio conversion as well.

I'm not arguing anyone's position here, but I thought I would add another potential angle to a possible explanation.

This "perceived" rather than "measurable" bass loss theory, may not have 2 legs to stand on, but I thought it may provoke some relevant discussion.

JL

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Your Ad Here! on November 29, 2005, 05:01:39 PM
I like slipperman's last post (I'm too lazy to quote him). He hears a difference when transferring to a DAW at the studio he works at frequently. The degredation he refers to sounds pronounced. I'd like to assert that the reason why this happens is pretty f'n important and not dismiss this question as out of context.

To hear some deficiency in a transfer is inevitable. But the margin of error should be slight. A pronounced and very noticeable degredation in such a transfer is unacceptable, assuming someone at that studio gives a shit about quality.

There's about a dozen reasons one could think of off the top of the head why such a glaring deficiency could be occuring. These include calibration/connectivity problems, user error, system optimization/tweaks, broken equipment, or as MM suggests poorly designed DAWs.

Frankly, I don't think such a pronounced degradation lies in the DAW (PTs HD in this case). I believe it much more likely to be other factors or conditions that generate a less-than-optimum transfer.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 05:02:57 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 12:33

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 09:34

Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:52

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:08

 This creates its own set of problem because some joker is going to null the 3 files to the original, which will reveal the 2" test file.


There, I took a position.  I guess I can't be Mixerman's shill anymore.

-Carter William Humphrey


I don't think the two digital files would null.  There are differences in them caused by the two sets of AD converters.  The files are limited in accuracy by the limits of those converters, in and out of both Pro Tools and Radar.  So the analog is suffering one conversion--at the Lavery only.  Pro Tools and Radar get converted 3 times.

One would have to have greater experience than I to identify the three files by their digital sonic fingerprint, since there is no glaring low end problem that mixerman has written about.

I do agree with your post about the type of material.  A big Reggae grove would have been an easier test for lowend.

Steve



The 2" was converted ONCE through the Lavry to Nuendo.

RADAR was a conversion of the 2" and then to the Lavry.  So is that not only 2 conversions?

PT the same.

The 2" was "live" to Lavry, then "Live" to PT to Lavry, then "Live" to RADAR to Lavry.


I'm not trying to be picky but, you are flat wrong here.  When you record there is an AD conversion going into Pro Tools/Radar, and then a DA coversion on playback to the console.  Then it goes to the Lavry.  Three.  I don't see any other way to count conversions, unless you want to count the conversion out of the Lavry, or whatever converter is used for final playback.  Then it would be 4 for Pro Tools/Radar, and 2 for analog.

Steve




As I said, I understand your point now.

Let me add however -

When listening "live" to this test in the room, this new one or Mixerman in the past :

1.  The 2" is always heard with no conversion.

2.  RADAR and PT are always heard through 2 stages of conversion, as you pointed out.

So all that is changing in terms of conversion on this or Mixerman's test (he did say he put it on CD and it was still there) is the Lavry/Nuendo combo and whatever people choose to listen to in terms of DAC.

So all files are treated equally when going to storage as opposed to live.

PT and RADAR have already been heard through 2 stages of conversion "live".  It's not as if the Lavry/Nuendo combo added any more conversion to the PT and RADAR files that weren't already there before final print of all 3 formats.

Every one of these files came out of the same fader and pan levels. Everything heard live in the control room went only through the Lavry once TO the files.  Yes, everyone needs to listen BACK through another conversion stage.  But all files heard live were treated exactly the same via storage.

Just food for thought.

Edit:

When people talk about how many stages of conversion on this test, THAT IS WHAT THIS TEST WAS ABOUT!

The 2" VS the 2" transferred and played back on RADAR and Pro Tools.

So if this was heard live in the room, meaning all 3 formats, 2" converted to PT and RADAR, can each live source be transferred through the Lavry converters intact?

Simple.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 05:08:05 PM
blueboy wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 13:51

R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 13:27

Right - but everyone here should be listening to the same resolution in this test.

In this case only a few things could be the case.

1.  The problem didn't exist and the Lavry/Nuendo combo captured that fact.

2.  The problem did exist but the Lavry/Nuendo combo had close to the same bottom end loss as the 192, thereby rendering the bottom end on all files very close.

3.  The problem did exist but the Lavry/Nuendo combo added the lost bottom back to only the 192 files.

4.  Digital conversion is the great equalizer and everyone making alternate mixes of their projects through digital conversion is fooling themselves as none of those subtle changes make it into the file.  The bass up mix?  Useless.

Please jump in here anyone!


Maybe you are misinterpreting what I am suggesting. I don't know if this is the case or not, but what I am saying is that this "may" not be a "measurable bass loss", but may be a "perceived bass loss" due to the accuracy of digital conversion.

If the subtleties of room reflections are lost during conversion, there "may" be the perception that the low end is not as "fat" or "full" as the original.

Every time you go through a conversion stage, accuracy is lost, no matter how high the quality of your converter.

The original transfer was essentially comparing the "accuracy" of 2 different converters. When playing these files back in the room against the original, the RADAR more accurately represented the original signal than Pro Tools. This difference may be "obvious" to some, but not as important to others. I don't know that actual  listening conditions that were present at the Chicago tests, but I could see the possibility that this type of problem might be hard to identify in that situation with a large number of people etc.

The files that we are comparing were all affected by an equal amount of inevitable accuracy loss through the Lavry/Nuendo system. Any loss was consistent, so a comparison is still valid. But if the problem is caused by conversion, the accuracy of all files will be reduced slightly, and the analog may not "stand out" as much in comparison to the others after the initial conversion to digital. Maybe the inital conversion from analog to digital incurs a greater loss than subsequent digital conversions. I know for a fact that this is the case when digitizing analog video. The most "error" occurs during the initial conversion, with far less degradation occurring in subsequent conversions. Maybe it is relevant to audio conversion as well.

I'm not arguing anyone's position here, but I thought I would add another potential angle to a possible explanation.

This "perceived" rather than "measurable" bass loss theory, may not have 2 legs to stand on, but I thought it may provoke some relevant discussion.

JL




When you claim that the RADAR played the 2" back with more accuracy where are you getting this information?

So far I have only heard one person from the Chicago test say that.  And they owned the RADAR.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 05:13:04 PM
Slipperman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 14:33

But as for the DAW duping thing.....

The problem exists.

It remains.

I hear it.

My staff hears it.

On awful occasion...Our clients hear it.

And when they do. It sucks.

Of course.... The following is not a new argument...

But WE ALL KNOW THAT:

When the next generation of AD/DA's come out...

And the same manufacturers who are now claiming that their products can ENTIRELY CAPTURE the output of a solid 2" analog recording will then be explaining how the new stuff is a BIG IMPROVEMENT sonically over the last generation...




Very funny post Slipperman.  Very Womb-like.  Positively Marshian.  Right, let's not get personal about any of this.

And I think you're right.  I imagine Digi has on a workbench somewhere a new set of converters that wil be even more perfect than the present edition.  What can I say?  Progress sucks.

I don't think anybody has ever claimed that a given set of converters perfectly captures something.  Something is always lost or changed.  It was true of ADATs, early DAT machines, the Sony and Mitsubishi monsters, 888's, Apogees, choose your poison.  Some are better than others, but none are perfect.  And yes, when you transfer from tape to anything something changes.  The question is "in what way and how much."

I didn't start this thread or initiate this test, and i sure as hell didn't fly across the country to hear something that i can hear at my own place, but since it looks like it was mostly done correctly I find it interesting--independent of the fairly trivial question of whether MM was "wrong" or not.  People can listen and reach their own conclusions.  Interesting that a couple of Digi guys have checked it out and stuck their necks out.

But here's on for ya.

When I track to tape, which I do from time to time, I keep the tape outputs patched through the converters and monitor through the Protools outputs.  So I'm essentially listening to the transfer from the start.  I mean, if it's going to end up there why not be there from the start?  Seems like that would solve the problem you're having.

All the best,
R

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on November 29, 2005, 05:26:12 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 14:08

When you claim that the RADAR played the 2" back with more accuracy where are you getting this information?

So far I have only heard one person from the Chicago test say that.  And they owned the RADAR.



Somehow I knew you were going to pick that out, but I was too lazy to edit it.

What I meant to say is that some people, ("maybe" Mixerman), may feel that the RADAR converters may "degrade" the signal less than the Pro Tools converters.

If some people are less "tuned in" to this subtle degradation, that may be part of the reason why not everyone heard it in Chicago.

Also, if the problem is in fact a "perception" of bass loss caused by a loss of room reflections and not "actual" frequency loss, that may explain why very few heard it.

Maybe they were "listening" for the wrong thing. Maybe the original description of the loss of the bottom octave or whatever was an incorrect assessment of the problem.

If people were asked at the test if the sound was "smaller" or lacked "room sound" or "fullness" (which some may perceive as a bass loss), maybe more hands would have went up.

Communication always seems to be the root of all inexplicable problems, so maybe this had something to do with it.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on November 29, 2005, 05:35:24 PM
By the way, I'm not suggesting that there is in any way a "big" difference in any of these files, and I definitely don't hear a dramatic bass loss. I hear "quality" differences which I attribute to conversion accuracy.

But if you have to "squint" your ears to hear the subtleties of these files, the problem is the degree of sensitivity the listener has, and not the equipment. If you don't like the sound of the converters, use another converter with Pro Tools.

Did anyone hook up another set of converters to Pro Tools to see if the same problem occurred?

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 29, 2005, 05:36:34 PM
Yeah...those damm coverters agian.

Seems like if you know the problem exists you would find away to keep
all the balls and analog bloom intact instead of repeatedly complaining about it after the fact.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 29, 2005, 06:40:17 PM
I have listened to the three files. None of them have the bottom octave. Not one. Notta. Zip! Dave Collins put it on a CD for me (because if anyone can do that right, he can), and I played it in my car. My sub-woofer doesn't even kick in when I hit the loudness button.

Most CDs buzz out my speakers (and my enttire car for that matter). This one doesn't. I can't judge the lopping of the bottom octave, when the bottom octave doesn't even exist on the source material.

Yes, there is low end on these files, and not a whole lot of high end. But it's all above 50 hz (in my estimation). I contend you could put a HPF set at 50, and this program would sound the same with the HPF in or out.

This is why no one can hear the loss on these files.

I have some more thoughts. I can't go through them until late tonight. In the meantime, everyone go crazy, make all sorts of wild accusations, bring up past quotes, jump on anyone whom expresses an open mind, suggest operator error ad infinitum, discusss conspiracy theories over how I've taken over moderating this forum, and make wise cracks about the fact that I played a CD in my car. (No, that's not my ciritcal listening space. But it IS very telling about some things, and it tells me there's no point in critically listening to this, it's fucked from the git).

Make me bleed.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 29, 2005, 07:07:42 PM
So were not talking about losing the balls anymore?

I take it were talking about anything below 50hz. At least we narrowed it down, and i think it is at least safe to say that MM's claim that PT 192
is bass lite at -6db at 60hz is a dead issue.

I'm glad we have that cleared up.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 07:09:07 PM
Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 15:40

I have listened to the three files. None of them have the bottom octave. Not one. Notta. Zip! Dave Collins put it on a CD for me (because if anyone can do that right, he can), and I played it in my car. My sub-woofer doesn't even kick in when I hit the loudness button.

Most CDs buzz out my speakers (and my enttire car for that matter). This one doesn't. I can't judge the lopping of the bottom octave, when the bottom octave doesn't even exist on the source material.

Yes, there is low end on these files, and not a whole lot of high end. But it's all above 50 hz (in my estimation). I contend you could put a HPF set at 50, and this program would sound the same with the HPF in or out.

This is why no one can hear the loss on these files.

I have some more thoughts. I can't go through them until late tonight. In the meantime, everyone go crazy, make all sorts of wild accusations, bring up past quotes, jump on anyone whom expresses an open mind, suggest operator error ad infinitum, discusss conspiracy theories over how I've taken over moderating this forum, and make wise cracks about the fact that I played a CD in my car. (No, that's not my ciritcal listening space. But it IS very telling about some things, and it tells me there's no point in critically listening to this, it's fucked from the git).

Make me bleed.

Enjoy,

Mixerman



Interesting that Bob O said there was plenty of low end on the files as did Brad.

Keep in mind, anyone with an open mind should be able to post here.

Yours may not be the only one.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 07:14:01 PM
Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 23:40

I have listened to the three files. None of them have the bottom octave. Not one. Notta. Zip! Dave Collins put it on a CD for me (because if anyone can do that right, he can), and I played it in my car. My sub-woofer doesn't even kick in when I hit the loudness button.

Most CDs buzz out my speakers (and my enttire car for that matter). This one doesn't. I can't judge the lopping of the bottom octave, when the bottom octave doesn't even exist on the source material.

Yes, there is low end on these files, and not a whole lot of high end. But it's all above 50 hz (in my estimation). I contend you could put a HPF set at 50, and this program would sound the same with the HPF in or out.

This is why no one can hear the loss on these files.

I have some more thoughts. I can't go through them until late tonight. In the meantime, everyone go crazy, make all sorts of wild accusations, bring up past quotes, jump on anyone whom expresses an open mind, suggest operator error ad infinitum, discusss conspiracy theories over how I've taken over moderating this forum, and make wise cracks about the fact that I played a CD in my car. (No, that's not my ciritcal listening space. But it IS very telling about some things, and it tells me there's no point in critically listening to this, it's fucked from the git).

Make me bleed.

Enjoy,

Mixerman


I said the same thing, if less elequently, yesterday.  Give me some material with some bottom, and we'll see what happens.

As we have talked on the phone,  I'm looking forward to you showing me what you're hearing.  For the record, I'm sceptical of there being a serious problem, but open minded.  It's not going to change endless numbers of tracks I've recorded and mixes I've done in the last number years in Pro Tools.  It probably won't change the way I work, or maybe it will.

So, to the rest of you, are you coming?  Randy, you seem to be very vocal on here, here's a chance to lose the Lavry's/Nuendo, the internet, and even PSW.  Like me, you can hear for yourself, is there a big deal?  Is there any deal?  Just show me.

-Carter William Humphrey

p.s. Rail, hopefully you'll make it too.  We had a great, unrelated, discussion last night.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 07:23:39 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 16:14

Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 23:40

I have listened to the three files. None of them have the bottom octave. Not one. Notta. Zip! Dave Collins put it on a CD for me (because if anyone can do that right, he can), and I played it in my car. My sub-woofer doesn't even kick in when I hit the loudness button.

Most CDs buzz out my speakers (and my enttire car for that matter). This one doesn't. I can't judge the lopping of the bottom octave, when the bottom octave doesn't even exist on the source material.

Yes, there is low end on these files, and not a whole lot of high end. But it's all above 50 hz (in my estimation). I contend you could put a HPF set at 50, and this program would sound the same with the HPF in or out.

This is why no one can hear the loss on these files.

I have some more thoughts. I can't go through them until late tonight. In the meantime, everyone go crazy, make all sorts of wild accusations, bring up past quotes, jump on anyone whom expresses an open mind, suggest operator error ad infinitum, discusss conspiracy theories over how I've taken over moderating this forum, and make wise cracks about the fact that I played a CD in my car. (No, that's not my ciritcal listening space. But it IS very telling about some things, and it tells me there's no point in critically listening to this, it's fucked from the git).

Make me bleed.

Enjoy,

Mixerman


I said the same thing, if less elequently, yesterday.  Give me some material with some bottom, and we'll see what happens.

As we have talked on the phone,  I'm looking forward to you showing me what you're hearing.  For the record, I'm sceptical of there being a serious problem, but open minded.  It's not going to change endless numbers of tracks I've recorded and mixes I've done in the last number years in Pro Tools.  It probably won't change the way I work, or maybe it will.

So, to the rest of you, are you coming?  Randy, you seem to be very vocal on here, here's a chance to lose the Lavry's/Nuendo, the internet, and even PSW.  Like me, you can hear for yourself, is there a big deal?  Is there any deal?  Just show me.

-Carter William Humphrey

p.s. Rail, hopefully you'll make it too.  We had a great, unrelated, discussion last night.




What are the parameters of the test?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 07:35:04 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 00:23

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 16:14

Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 23:40

I have listened to the three files. None of them have the bottom octave. Not one. Notta. Zip! Dave Collins put it on a CD for me (because if anyone can do that right, he can), and I played it in my car. My sub-woofer doesn't even kick in when I hit the loudness button.

Most CDs buzz out my speakers (and my enttire car for that matter). This one doesn't. I can't judge the lopping of the bottom octave, when the bottom octave doesn't even exist on the source material.

Yes, there is low end on these files, and not a whole lot of high end. But it's all above 50 hz (in my estimation). I contend you could put a HPF set at 50, and this program would sound the same with the HPF in or out.

This is why no one can hear the loss on these files.

I have some more thoughts. I can't go through them until late tonight. In the meantime, everyone go crazy, make all sorts of wild accusations, bring up past quotes, jump on anyone whom expresses an open mind, suggest operator error ad infinitum, discusss conspiracy theories over how I've taken over moderating this forum, and make wise cracks about the fact that I played a CD in my car. (No, that's not my ciritcal listening space. But it IS very telling about some things, and it tells me there's no point in critically listening to this, it's fucked from the git).

Make me bleed.

Enjoy,

Mixerman


I said the same thing, if less elequently, yesterday.  Give me some material with some bottom, and we'll see what happens.

As we have talked on the phone,  I'm looking forward to you showing me what you're hearing.  For the record, I'm sceptical of there being a serious problem, but open minded.  It's not going to change endless numbers of tracks I've recorded and mixes I've done in the last number years in Pro Tools.  It probably won't change the way I work, or maybe it will.

So, to the rest of you, are you coming?  Randy, you seem to be very vocal on here, here's a chance to lose the Lavry's/Nuendo, the internet, and even PSW.  Like me, you can hear for yourself, is there a big deal?  Is there any deal?  Just show me.

-Carter William Humphrey

p.s. Rail, hopefully you'll make it too.  We had a great, unrelated, discussion last night.




What are the parameters of the test?




Well, its Mixerman's show, but I assume it will go like this:

Play drums and bass off tape.

Transfer into Pro Tools, listen while transfer goes down.

Transfer into RADAR, listen while transfer goes down.

At that point I'll probably shake Mixerman's hand, and yours, if you're there, and go home.  

Since Mixerman is doing this in the middle of an actual working session, I don't want to take up too much of his time.

-Carter
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 07:40:24 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 16:35

 

Well, its Mixerman's show, but I assume it will go like this:

Play drums and bass off tape.

Transfer into Pro Tools, listen while transfer goes down.

Transfer into RADAR, listen while transfer goes down.

At that point I'll probably shake Mixerman's hand, and yours, if you're there, and go home.  

Since Mixerman is doing this in the middle of an actual working session, I don't want to take up too much of his time.

-Carter



So, do I want to go to a session that Mixerman is doing, watch him transfer bass and drums into Pro Tools, which he said he wasn't even using on this project as it wasn't good enough, listen back and leave?

Not really.



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 07:58:40 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 00:40

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 16:35

R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 00:23

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 16:14

Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 23:40

I have listened to the three files. None of them have the bottom octave. Not one. Notta. Zip! Dave Collins put it on a CD for me (because if anyone can do that right, he can), and I played it in my car. My sub-woofer doesn't even kick in when I hit the loudness button.

Most CDs buzz out my speakers (and my enttire car for that matter). This one doesn't. I can't judge the lopping of the bottom octave, when the bottom octave doesn't even exist on the source material.

Yes, there is low end on these files, and not a whole lot of high end. But it's all above 50 hz (in my estimation). I contend you could put a HPF set at 50, and this program would sound the same with the HPF in or out.

This is why no one can hear the loss on these files.

I have some more thoughts. I can't go through them until late tonight. In the meantime, everyone go crazy, make all sorts of wild accusations, bring up past quotes, jump on anyone whom expresses an open mind, suggest operator error ad infinitum, discusss conspiracy theories over how I've taken over moderating this forum, and make wise cracks about the fact that I played a CD in my car. (No, that's not my ciritcal listening space. But it IS very telling about some things, and it tells me there's no point in critically listening to this, it's fucked from the git).

Make me bleed.

Enjoy,

Mixerman


I said the same thing, if less elequently, yesterday.  Give me some material with some bottom, and we'll see what happens.

As we have talked on the phone,  I'm looking forward to you showing me what you're hearing.  For the record, I'm sceptical of there being a serious problem, but open minded.  It's not going to change endless numbers of tracks I've recorded and mixes I've done in the last number years in Pro Tools.  It probably won't change the way I work, or maybe it will.

So, to the rest of you, are you coming?  Randy, you seem to be very vocal on here, here's a chance to lose the Lavry's/Nuendo, the internet, and even PSW.  Like me, you can hear for yourself, is there a big deal?  Is there any deal?  Just show me.

-Carter William Humphrey

p.s. Rail, hopefully you'll make it too.  We had a great, unrelated, discussion last night.




What are the parameters of the test?




Well, its Mixerman's show, but I assume it will go like this:

Play drums and bass off tape.

Transfer into Pro Tools, listen while transfer goes down.

Transfer into RADAR, listen while transfer goes down.

At that point I'll probably shake Mixerman's hand, and yours, if you're there, and go home.  

Since Mixerman is doing this in the middle of an actual working session, I don't want to take up too much of his time.

-Carter



So, do I want to go to a session that Mixerman is doing, watch him transfer bass and drums into Pro Tools, which he said he wasn't even using on this project as it wasn't good enough, listen back and leave?

Not really.




What more do you want?  

-C
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 08:17:44 PM
Nothing. Mixerman is a good guy.  You should go just for the hang.

There was a real test done with great parameters and participants - I was not one of them.

The way the end of this real test went down when some didn't get their desired results was bazaar, in my opinion.

I understand Mixerman's take on all of this.

But after the care and planning that went into this I really have no interest to go into Mixerman's sandbox set up and ready to go to show a desired result.

He claimed big as life that no matter what he would not argue with this outcome.  Ha!

So to go and hear "look it's shitty"?

No thanks.

No matter what it sounds like this won't change.

I am not suggesting anyone else not go.  


Years ago I was producing a metal record for Epic.  I hired a well known engineer to track and mix and I did the overdubs.

The guy was a bit of a dick.  In the middle of overdubs, I decided one track just didn't "have it" and recut it myself.

We get to the mix (Record Plant) and this was about the 6th track to be mixed.  Of course I am a tad nervous to hear my tracks next to all his.

He starts bring up the tracks - this was late after a mix was put to bed.  This was just the start.

Of course I ask, "how do THESE tracks sound?"  He replies "not great but I can deal".  He brings up a couple of drums (kick, snare) says kinda thin but I'll make it killer.

I leave.  I come back the next evening maybe 7:00 and start listening and the track is pretty bright and screechy.  Of course I am thinking boy I could have done better UNTIL I notice, no background vocals, NO finished solo or anything else.

HE WAS MIXING HIS OWN TRACK!!!!!!!!!  When he thought it was mine it was all screwed up!  He didn't even notice the track wasn't finished he was so into making it sound bad.

This is just one example of my travels through this business.

So does this interest me?  I KNOW the outcome.  Been there, done that.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on November 29, 2005, 08:54:27 PM
Maybe I missed something along the way, but if this an actual loss of frequency, rather than a perceived loss, why couldn't you just set up the proper type of mic in the listening environment and do a real-time spectrum analysis using tones and program material to compare the analog and the Pro Tools transfer.

I find it hard to believe that an actual loss can not be measured.

Why could you not just measure the actual "acoustic" end result in the room and compare the two?

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 08:58:15 PM
Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:40

Yes, there is low end on these files, and not a whole lot of high end. But it's all above 50 hz (in my estimation). I contend you could put a HPF set at 50, and this program would sound the same with the HPF in or out.



I was curious so I tried just that.  I used a Massenburg plugin to apply a hipass at 50 hz with 2 different slopes--6db per octave and 12 db per octave.  Switching it in and out there was a pretty obvious difference, certainly more obvious than the difference between any 2 of these files.  

I also put a PAZ freguency analyzer on it to have a look, FWIW.  Here is the breakdown with no hipass.  Looks like a fair amount at 23 hz, at least compared to the other frequency bands as you get a little higher.  You could argue about whether this is enough, but it is in fact there.

I don't know if this is fine enough resolution to be really useful, but here it is anyway.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 09:00:12 PM
Here it is with a 6db hipass @ 50 hz.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 29, 2005, 09:03:05 PM
And 12db hipass.

I'm not claiming this proves anything.  Take it for what it is.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 29, 2005, 09:05:32 PM
Quote:

The way the end of this real test went down when some didn't get their desired results was bazaar, in my opinion.



Very well put Randy.

The problem I see here is that Steve Albini heard the bottom octave drop out, and Fletcher said he heard it plain as day.

Now, mixerman says there is no bottom octave after listening to it in his car.

Wasn't it mm who went on about the fact that you had to be in a proper acoustic enviorment to make any real informed opinion?

So I will interpret mixermans reply to mean,

{ and I don't believe or think this to be true myself for a second }  

that it is Steve Albini's fault for not providing any bottom octave in the source material to begin with, and a side note that Fletcher can't hear anything for shit.

And, he came to this conclusion while listening in his car?

Classic.

Wasn't it MM who said he had so much faith in Steve and Fletcher that this test could not get screwed up?

Well, he already said the test was flawed before he heard the files. Now, after listening to them in his car dithered to a CD,  we know that he thinks everybody who contributed to the test fucked it up, including the only 2 out of the 20 people that backed him up on his original claim.

That is what I call no class, and an extreme cognitive disconnect. Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 09:11:16 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 01:17



There was a real test done with great parameters and participants - I was not one of them.

The way the end of this real test went down when some didn't get their desired results was bazaar, in my opinion.

I understand Mixerman's take on all of this.

But after the care and planning that went into this I really have no interest to go into Mixerman's sandbox set up and ready to go to show a desired result.

He claimed big as life that no matter what he would not argue with this outcome.  Ha!

So to go and hear "look it's shitty"?

No thanks.

No matter what it sounds like this won't change.

I am not suggesting anyone else not go.  


Years ago I was producing a metal record for Epic.  I hired a well known engineer to track and mix and I did the overdubs.

The guy was a bit of a dick.  In the middle of overdubs, I decided one track just didn't "have it" and recut it myself.

We get to the mix (Record Plant) and this was about the 6th track to be mixed.  Of course I am a tad nervous to hear my tracks next to all his.

He starts bring up the tracks - this was late after a mix was put to bed.  This was just the start.

Of course I ask, "how do THESE tracks sound?"  He replies "not great but I can deal".  He brings up a couple of drums (kick, snare) says kinda thin but I'll make it killer.

I leave.  I come back the next evening maybe 7:00 and start listening and the track is pretty bright and screechy.  Of course I am thinking boy I could have done better UNTIL I notice, no background vocals, NO finished solo or anything else.

HE WAS MIXING HIS OWN TRACK!!!!!!!!!  When he thought it was mine it was all screwed up!  He didn't even notice the track wasn't finished he was so into making it sound bad.

This is just one example of my travels through this business.

So does this interest me?  I KNOW the outcome.  Been there, done that.


So you spend the better part of yesterday working me over publicly because I ask the discussion stay professional, but you won't give a hour, at the most, of your time for this?  

I was hoping for a definative result from the test.  For me, it just didn't come off that way.

Now I get to hear it straight from the horses mouth.  Do you really believe Mixerman is going to manipulate the result?  If he does, I'm confident I'll catch it, but come on, I doubt he's going to try to pull a fast one.  Also, I'll have no trouble looking him in the eye if I don't hear it, and saying, "Sorry, don't hear it."

-Carter William Humphrey

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 09:25:16 PM
How can there be a definitive result from this test?  How is this test professional?  To show up at a studio and witness a transfer into a format not to be used on the project?  I don't agree.

Why are you getting personal about that?

So what will be different than now if someone says they hear it and another says they don't?

We have that going on now.  No ball will be moved forward.

Why do you care if I go or not?

By manipulate, I mean I believe that Mixerman will never admit to it even if shown it doesn't happen.  It just happened.  That doesn't mean you agree.  

We can agree to disagree.

If you feel this is a definitive test and professional, go for it.  If I don't think it's professional, don't get personal.

It's all good.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 09:35:13 PM
[quote title=R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 02:25]
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:11



How can there be a definitive result from this test?  How is this test professional?  To show up at a studio and witness a transfer into a format not to be used on the project?  I don't agree.

Why are you getting personal about that?

So what will be different than now if someone says they hear it and another says they don't?

We have that going on now.  No ball will be moved forward.

Why do you care if I go or not?

By manipulate, I mean I believe that Mixerman will never admit to it even if shown it doesn't happen.  It just happened.  That doesn't mean you agree.  

We can agree to disagree.

If you feel this is a definitive test and professional, go for it.  If I don't think it's professional, don't get personal.

It's all good.



Go, don't go.  Whatever.  It's nothing personal to me.  And since you deleted all your posts, I guess yesterday never happened.

I'd call this a demonstration, not a test.

-Carter William Humphrey
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 09:40:38 PM
[quote title=CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:35]
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 02:25

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:11



How can there be a definitive result from this test?  How is this test professional?  To show up at a studio and witness a transfer into a format not to be used on the project?  I don't agree.

Why are you getting personal about that?

So what will be different than now if someone says they hear it and another says they don't?

We have that going on now.  No ball will be moved forward.

Why do you care if I go or not?

By manipulate, I mean I believe that Mixerman will never admit to it even if shown it doesn't happen.  It just happened.  That doesn't mean you agree.  

We can agree to disagree.

If you feel this is a definitive test and professional, go for it.  If I don't think it's professional, don't get personal.

It's all good.



Go, don't go.  Whatever.  It's nothing personal to me.  And since you deleted all your posts, I guess yesterday never happened.

I'd call this a demonstration, not a test.

-Carter William Humphrey



I deleted NO posts.  Maybe somebody else did but Not I.

I don't believe a mere member/poster can delete a post.  The text maybe, but not a post.

I wouldn't be shocked to see many of mine gone in time.  But it won't be me deleting anything.  That's for sure.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 29, 2005, 09:53:26 PM
Carter, I am amazed that you can't see thru MM flagrant self-aggrandizement.


WTF? Rolling Eyes

Go and be his monkey, but I get the feeling you know better.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 09:53:39 PM
Quote:

<deleted by RKrizman>


Sorry, my bad.  I'm so daft.  It was Rick that censored himself, for whatever reason.

Randy, if I've offended you, sorry.  

-C
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 10:06:12 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:05

Quote:

The way the end of this real test went down when some didn't get their desired results was bazaar, in my opinion.



Very well put Randy.

The problem I see here is that Steve Albini heard the bottom octave drop out, and Fletcher said he heard it plain as day.

Now, mixerman says there is no bottom octave after listening to it in his car.

Wasn't it mm who went on about the fact that you had to be in a proper acoustic enviorment to make any real informed opinion?

So I will interpret mixermans reply to mean,

{ and I don't believe or think this to be true myself for a second }  

that it is Steve Albini's fault for not providing any bottom octave in the source material to begin with, and a side note that Fletcher can't hear anything for shit.

And, he came to this conclusion while listening in his car?

Classic.

Wasn't it MM who said he had so much faith in Steve and Fletcher that this test could not get screwed up?

Well, he already said the test was flawed before he heard the files. Now, after listening to them in his car dithered to a CD,  we know that he thinks everybody who contributed to the test fucked it up, including the only 2 out of the 20 people that backed him up on his original claim.

That is what I call no class, and an extreme cognitive disconnect. Rolling Eyes


Some of us here aren't deaf and Mixerman is the only one with ears. Far from it.

Many people have heard these files on a few systems.

Mastering engineers here have commented.  They commented on the energy of the bottom end.

A very few have commented on the bottom in general being "light".

To many, the extension of the bottom end is not an issue.

This is just a giant hedge, but it's so obvious why get worked up?

It's like looking at an orange ball and someone is saying it's green.  It's turned that silly.

Everyone in the room knows who farted, but if some didn't hear it or choose not to, what can you do?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 29, 2005, 10:22:32 PM
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:53

Quote:

<deleted by RKrizman>


Sorry, my bad.  I'm so daft.  It was Rick that censored himself, for whatever reason.

Randy, if I've offended you, sorry.  

-C


I am not offended at all.  You seem like a smart guy.  You and I mean each other no harm. (I hope)

I am just passionate about what went down and amazed at the difference of throwing words like hedging around over and over before the test and now all this.  It's like knock a block off my shoulder.  Well, not THAT block.

People believe what they want to believe.

This has been a great study is people (myself included) as well.  Once some people hold on to an issue they will "die" with it.  I personally believe that is what's going on here.

In the end, this thread will die off, the regulars will be back to what they do and Mixerman will do what he does.  He's a great promoter of his internet brand.  This brings eyeballs.  I get it.

I'm not a Pro Tools guy.  But I "get it". Understand it and why it is used so much.

I do believe Mixerman over reached, over bragged and now will not admit to any of it.  Enough so that he is going to have a demo to show he's right. With no checks in place.  It will work for him and the people he wants to prove this to.

I do not wish to be a bit player in the book.

Again, this is purely my own take on this.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 29, 2005, 10:34:21 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 03:22

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:53

Quote:

<deleted by RKrizman>


Sorry, my bad.  I'm so daft.  It was Rick that censored himself, for whatever reason.

Randy, if I've offended you, sorry.  

-C


I am not offended at all.  You seem like a smart guy.  You and I mean each other no harm. (I hope)

I am just passionate about what went down and amazed at the difference of throwing words like hedging around over and over before the test and now all this.  It's like knock a block off my shoulder.  Well, not THAT block.

People believe what they want to believe.

This has been a great study is people (myself included) as well.  Once some people hold on to an issue they will "die" with it.  I personally believe that is what's going on here.

In the end, this thread will die off, the regulars will be back to what they do and Mixerman will do what he does.  He's a great promoter of his internet brand.  This brings eyeballs.  I get it.

I'm not a Pro Tools guy.  But I "get it". Understand it and why it is used so much.

I do believe Mixerman over reached, over bragged and now will not admit to any of it.  Enough so that he is going to have a demo to show he's right. With no checks in place.  It will work for him and the people he wants to prove this to.

I do not wish to be a bit player in the book.

Again, this is purely my own take on this.



I guess I am a Pro Tools guy since any hits I've mixed were in the box.  The transition from tape and console to PT happened quick, though sometimes I miss tape.

I also think that that MM is a great promoter and told him so when he called me about the demonstration.  I'm happy to be included, since reading about this over the years and now I get to go to the source.  How often does that happen?  As far as any checks go, I just have my own ears and eyes.  Back in the day, I learned as a techician, when you go into the control room, ignore the diagnosis, no matter how bigtime the engineer is.  Make them show you the symptoms.  Draw your own diagnosis.

That's what I'll do.

-Carter William Humphrey
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 29, 2005, 10:35:38 PM
Hey all,

Busy day for me.  A couple of thoughts.

First, especially for Randy and Carter, but others too.  Perhaps you could simply hit the reply button instead of the quote button so you're not quoting quotes of quotes and making the posts really long.  This thread is lengthy and once you've read what someone just wrote in the previous post, we don't really need to see it all again in quotes.  Just a thought.

Secondly, haven't really followed every single post, but I did see where MM said there was no bass on any of the tracks (if I understood correctly).  As pointed out, Bob and Brad, both mastering engineers, proclaimed to the contrary in earlier posts, and that somewhat subjective statement (not enough bass in the source material to prove the point) could be argued for days.  It is really difficult for me to believe that MM's original statement, that in a transfer, PT basically drops the bottom octave, can't be validated with these files.  In my mind, it surely can be said that on this program material, and within the scope of these tests, no such loss of bass occurred.  And, if I'm understanding correctly, MM is conceding that, for whatever reason, there is little difference between these files.  

(Sorry, Steve and Fletcher, but I'm not going to consider comments made after the fact and withheld at time of test when said claims could have been investigated and, potentially cured if such problems actually existed.  Additionally, that test was not blind, and given that Fletcher is the Rep for a competitive product and has publicly stated his desire to "filet" Digi, and given that Steve is a devout 2" guy to the core, I can't put creedence into the aftermatch comments.  I simply believe that they should have made the comments when they could have been investigated. YMMV).  

The reason that the Chicago test was good was because all sides/factions were equally represented.  If something went wrong with the Radar, Fletcher was there.  The 2", Steve was there.  The PT rig, Gannon was there.  And, over the course of some weeks of methodology posts, all sides agreed on the fairness of the process before it got underway.  No one can argue that point, because everyone is on record as having stated their satisfaction in the process.  If anyone else runs "tests" on their own, I believe that, for any new test to be considered as having any validity, said tester must be as diligent as the Chicago crew was.  AND, said tester should invite representatives from all factions to attend, so that IF there is found to be a problem in any part of the process, someone will be there representing each platform to make sure that the setup is correct.  Let's keep in mind that the staff of CRC, along with Gannon, Fletcher, Ron et al, spent what I presume to be a considerable amount of time setting up the test, getting everything to a tenth of a db or whatever.  I have no problem with anyone else doing tests, in fact, I encourage it, as long as said tester is prepared to go to the same lengths that the Chicago testers did.  If said tester(s) is not willing to put what I consider to be the proper amount of effort into the tests, I won't be putting the proper amount of validity into the resulting files.  Again, YMMV.

Alright, it's wine time.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: compasspnt on November 29, 2005, 11:15:58 PM
John, you just beat me to it.  I was going to ask why so many have so much time to write all the posts, but so little to edit the quotations.  Taking up a lot of space here...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 30, 2005, 01:08:31 AM
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 21:53

Quote:

<deleted by RKrizman>


Sorry, my bad.  I'm so daft.  It was Rick that censored himself, for whatever reason.

Randy, if I've offended you, sorry.  

-C


I just took out some stuff that was incendiary and personal and not moving the discussion forward.  Not trying to hide from it, just a gesture of good will.

I don't want this to be personal with anyone, including Mixerman.  I applaud the fact that people are critical of the whole digital revolution even if I don't agree with how it's expressed.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 30, 2005, 02:01:23 AM
RKrizman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 06:08

CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 21:53

Quote:

<deleted by RKrizman>


Sorry, my bad.  I'm so daft.  It was Rick that censored himself, for whatever reason.

Randy, if I've offended you, sorry.  

-C


I just took out some stuff that was incendiary and personal and not moving the discussion forward.  Not trying to hide from it, just a gesture of good will.

I don't want this to be personal with anyone, including Mixerman.  I applaud the fact that people are critical of the whole digital revolution even if I don't agree with how it's expressed.

-R


Rick,

If you followed the earlier posts, I mistakenly thought that Randy had deleted himself.  It was you.  I didn't mean bring you into this.

Resonator,

This I meant to quote within quote, this time.  Sorry for the earlier offences with the quoting and all.

J.J.,

You see?  This is why I like lurking much better.

Please everyone...back to Chicago, with the Pro Tools and the testing, and the discussions...

Cheers,

Carter William Humphrey
Title: Q
Post by: Mixerman on November 30, 2005, 02:07:20 AM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 19:06



The problem I see here is that Steve Albini heard the bottom octave drop out, and Fletcher said he heard it plain as day.

Now, mixerman says there is no bottom octave after listening to it in his car.

Wasn't it mm who went on about the fact that you had to be in a proper acoustic enviorment to make any real informed opinion?

So I will interpret mixermans reply to mean,

{ and I don't believe or think this to be true myself for a second }  

that it is Steve Albini's fault for not providing any bottom octave in the source material to begin with, and a side note that Fletcher can't hear anything for shit.

And, he came to this conclusion while listening in his car?

Classic.

Wasn't it MM who said he had so much faith in Steve and Fletcher that this test could not get screwed up?

Well, he already said the test was flawed before he heard the files.


Randy,

One of the first things you said to me when we spoke by phone was that you felt the material was terrible for judging the bottom octave.

That's what you said to me. You called the material terrible. You told me that you don't understand the decision to use this material. You claimed that the test was a waste with this material. Then you said, you wouldn't want to say any of that on the internet, because you wouldn't want to bash Steve Albini.

For the record, I'm not bashing or disrespecting Steve in any way. But if my car speakers aren't buzzing out from the material, well there ain't much sub information there. That's a fact. I know how my car stereo reacts to low end. I appreciate Steve taking the time to do this test, but I'm not going to just pretend it's got the kind of low end that I deal with on a regular occasion. Steve did nothing wrong. In fact, this test illustrates to me just how low the problem is. Before this, I thought it was a problem around 50hz. Now I know it's lower. So, the test certainly wasn't a waste as far as I'm concerned.

Now. You seem to think I'm the only one that feels this program material isn't adequate for judging the bottom octave. Aside from yourself, I'd like to point out a few others that feel similarly. For starters, I spoke with Brad Blackwood today. In my conversation with him, he didn't seem to feel there was any real sub information on these files.

The first thing that Digiengineer, who happens to be a personal friend, (you know, the kind of guy that and doesn't say one thing on the phone and then make up all sorts of other bullshit on the internet), he says to me, "Dude! It barely tickles my subwoofer."

CW Humphrey listens to the files and states the same thing. Where's the bottom octave?

It's like "where's the beef?" Only this is, "where's the bottom octave?" Eh. Not so catchy.

So, I'm not the only one saying this about these stereo files. Considering, I am the one that has experienced the loss of low-end problem when making this transfer, and not you; I think that I am the only one of the two of us wholly qualified to make the determination as to whether these files have the low-end information necessary or not.

Now, we have to wonder WHY these files don't have the subs. Perhaps Steve doesn't use that information in his work. I know some guys that use the HPF as a matter of course. Perhaps Steve does this. I don't know. I do know that the low end that I typically use in my work extends far lower than these files.

Again. Where's the bottom octave on these three files?

Hey! I know! Perhaps they are all Pro Tools files! Maybe the bias runs so deep on the other side of the fence (see vitriolic posts in this thread as evidence) that these are all the same files (perhaps with a slight bit of EQ just to give them some differentiation).

Or perhaps, the guy who chopped these up, fucked up! Perhaps the chopper guy used all the same files by accident. That would be operator error, right?

Maybe the cable was fucked up into the stereo recorder. Or perhaps someone had a HPF strapped to the Nuendo.

I mean, those are the sorts of things that have been used to explain my results. Surely, if these are valid explanation where I'm concerned, they are equally valid where the participants of this test are concerned.

Ridiculous? Perhaps. But poignant, methinks.

Setting that aside.

I'll ask you this, Randy. Since none of the three Rs here ever seem to want to touch it. Why does Slipperman experience the same thing? Here's a guy that owns two rigs. Never disses Digidesign. Has used multiple configurations of rigs and cabling, with multiple configurations of people, And he's saying time after time after time, the bottom disappears. Could someone explain that?

Please. Explain that.

Here's a guy that makes record after record, the same way. 2" to Pro Tools. Every time. Low end loss. Every time.

Why?

None of you find that odd? None of you stop and say to yourselves, "Well that's weird." Two guys, that make records frequently and in a similar manner (2" to Pro Tools) have experienced the same exact problem, described in the same exact way, and they've never done a project together. That doesn't stop you in your tracks?

Of course not. Both Slipperman and I just hapen to be equally  incapable and incompetent in transferring a 2" tape into Pro Tools. Further, everyone and anyone that ever sets a foot in a room with us, is guaranteed to be equally as incomeptent and incapable of making the transfer as their boss. And yet somehow, I manage a transfer into just about any other digital box with no problems whatsoever.

Strange. Miraculous, even

Hey, I get not believing ME on this issue. That makes some sense. I mean, I made up a whole new terminology for the platform. But Slipperman? How DO you explain him? Because all I see is a bunch of ignoring where HIS claims are concerned. How come his feet aren't being held to the fire?

Isn't his claim just as irresponsible as mine? Shouldn't the torch-bearers be knocking on his door?

I'm not encouraging that, mind you. He's a stellar AE, a pillar of our community, and I consider him a friend. But he's not going to be making shit up for my benefit. So, tell me. Why doth thee ignoreth Slipperman, Brut
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: ajcamlet on November 30, 2005, 02:41:24 AM
MM:
what kind of car?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 30, 2005, 03:23:22 AM
Slipperman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 11:33


And Rail Jon Rogut. Especially this guy. I love this guy. He's got his finger glued on the "Mayday" button.... when he takes it off, he uses it to point at somebody. Sure hope nobody ever breaks it off and sticks it up his ass. That would be terrible. Might be tough to write software code with no working fingers.


Ya know...

I'd rather have my finger up my ass.. than my head up my ass as you have.

Mixerman made a very specific claim -- try all you want you can't change the claim he made.  No one ever said that a digitized recording will sound the same as the original analog -- find a post anywhere claiming that!  Mixerman (your close personal friend) stated quite plainly that the RADAR didn't lose low end while Pro Tools did (just ask his maid) -- this has nothing to do with comparing analog to Pro Tools -- it's about doing a transfer from analog to RADAR and Pro Tools and comparing the playback from both systems for a specific issue.  Mixerman's the genius who decided on recording each playback pass to CD for comparison.

If you really want to attack someone or a company have the balls to use your real name(s).

But now I guess it's all Steve's fault for not knowing how to record any bottom end....

It's quite strange how the moderators here selectively remove posts.

Rail "Fingers" Jon Rogut
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 30, 2005, 03:51:26 AM

Oh fuck! I knew there was something I forgot in my post.


Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 00:23



It's quite strange how the moderators here selectively remove posts.



And you would suggest they just remove them all outright?

How else are they going to remove posts? Unselectively? Deselectively? Inselectively? Imselectively? Antiselectively?

FWIW, I've had several of my posts torched too, Rail. Some of them written specifically in repsonse to you. You don't see me complaining, do you? Torched posts go with the territory of a moderated board. No one is immune.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on November 30, 2005, 06:54:10 AM
For whatever it may be worth... there was plenty of bottom on that material to hear a loss... was it 6db at 50Hz?  nah, it was more like 4.3db@40... [joking Rail... it's Valium time].

The recorded files do not reflect what was heard in the control room... now, this could be from any variety of reasons from the sample sections being recorded at 96k [I heard better bottom from both the RADAR and PT formats at 48 than at 96] to differences with peoples D/A converters in their listening environments... to whatever.

The fact of the matter is that when you sat in that room there was a palpable loss of low end, as well as depth and dimension with the 192 rig.  Debate it until you turn blue, but it was there.  Will it affect sales?  That I can't answer.  Does it make a damn bit of difference in the overall picture / presentation of the music?  That I can't answer.  Was it present?  That I can answer and the answer is "Yes".

As for posts being deleted by moderators... if it happens in this thread I want to know about it.  I've been letting this one go pretty much "wild west" because of the sheer volume of material posted here [I don't have the time, sorry to say... I acutally have a life].  If the quantity of complaints becomes a pain in my ass I will move this thread to the "saloon" where y'all can throw whatever minor sense of decorum you might have right out the window.

I will ask you to please behave in a professional manner, discussion is fine, ad hominem attacks are out of bounds.  If you want to do that kind of bullshit there are several other forums where you can do that to your hearts content.

... and now back to your regularly scheduled pogrom...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 30, 2005, 07:32:34 AM
FWIW, I talked to a mixer buddy of mine who was at CRC when the test was going on and dropped in during the test. He told me that in the the room there was a definite loss on the bottom end.

This guy is one of the best RnB/HipHop mixers around, and he heard it plain as day. He can't figure out why the digital files don't show it, but he heard the difference immediately.

Sadly, due the nature of this thread, he doesn't want to join in the discussion. No one seems to be willing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe what was observed in the room was not captured in the files. I certainly can't explain it either, but am unwilling to dismiss what Fletcher and Mr. Albini (and my buddy) heard in the room.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 30, 2005, 07:33:55 AM
There are a lot of attacks in this thread.

I've said several times in this thread that the material selected was a poor choice for checking low end.  Perhaps that's just me.  If you work with that style of music, then maybe you can tell while I can't.  When I hear mixes by the Major League guys, I hear plenty of low end, and most of that stuff comes off Pro Tools.

I work mostly in PT, but I don't have any trouble getting my sub to move, so if it's there, and I press the red button, it's going to be there on playback.  Let Mixerman do his test, and then post up the files so we can all hear.  If the low end in missing, then we'll know that either he is right, or that something is wack with his set up.  As far as I know, MM never posted the original transfer that caused all this fuss in the first place.

For my part, I think the bass frequencies that translate into "bottom" on small speakers are way more important than the stuff between 20 and 40hz, which MOST PEOPLE CAN'T REPRODUCE ANYWAY.  So if you're relying on that stuff to carry your message to the masses, you have missed the boat completely.  I don't have the fire in my belly that some of you guys have to fight this fight, but I'm interested in the outcome...Sort of...

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Jack Schitt on November 30, 2005, 07:54:13 AM
danickstr wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 16:20

I think if there was a mistake made, it was more that Mixerman (who seems to be the guy people are trying to disprove) failed to take into account that his relationship with a track is much more intimate when he does his layback to PT.  For that reason, the differences seem more prominent to him.  The 192 is going to change the sonics in its own way, no doubt about it.  He has, as he stated in his last post, a much more focused listen at that time.  This makes sense to me, and trying to tie people up on details just makes the other folks look like they have an axe to grind.  Lets find the probelem, as HG said, and address it to MM's satisfaction.  Agreeing to something only to find that you left something else out is not the way to lose a point, and should not be a way to win, when everyone has the pursuit of musical excellence at heart.

It reminds me of the song about the Bowery where the guy buys the box of socks only to find out that he bought the box and not the socks.  Tough luck, fella.  Fairness in practice should be everyone's goal.


This assumes there is a problem to begin with. I haven't heard a problem on any of the clips. If it is in the room(not confirmed by the vast majority in attendence from what I have read) and not in the files, any issue almost by definition has to be in the playback chain, not the recording itself, does it not?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Jack Schitt on November 30, 2005, 07:59:51 AM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 07:32

FWIW, I talked to a mixer buddy of mine who was at CRC when the test was going on and dropped in during the test. He told me that in the the room there was a definite loss on the bottom end.

This guy is one of the best RnB/HipHop mixers around, and he heard it plain as day. He can't figure out why the digital files don't show it, but he heard the difference immediately.

Sadly, due the nature of this thread, he doesn't want to join in the discussion. No one seems to be willing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe what was observed in the room was not captured in the files. I certainly can't explain it either, but am unwilling to dismiss what Fletcher and Mr. Albini (and my buddy) heard in the room.


Logic seems to dictate that if it was audible in the room and not in the files that the issue lies in the playback chain from the various formats does it not? Its the only variable not accounted for in what went into those files is it not?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 10:54:28 AM
Brad Blackwood wrote:

"I certainly can't explain it either, but am unwilling to dismiss what Fletcher and Mr. Albini (and my buddy) heard in the room. "

  ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------

Yeah and the easter bunny is real because some one said so?

Brad, seeing that you are very knowlegeable and respected guy you should be able to offer something more then,

"I certainly can't explain it either".

If that is the case, then this is clearly an overall digital problem where
missing sub frequency's are concerned.

What is funny about this now is that mm says there was no subs in the
program material,

and he can't even figure out who he is quoting,

but Fletcher heard it ":plain as day" and he said this off the test site after the fact,

Steve, said it was glaring, but then then said it was cleaner/thinner you pick the adjective,

and Brad's mysterious friend who is unwilling to come on-line and comment, said he heard it to but didn't raise his hand either.

and none of the above experts who heard the problem can't explain why
the "problem" does not exist on the files.

As I said Brad, while I understand these are friends and colleagues of your, as the well respected ME you are,

"I certainly can't explain it either".

Does not compute for me. But i guess that means when MM tells you the results of his test......... tells you..... you will take that as further proof that the low end problem is real.

Also, let's not forget that this whole MM bass lite thing was a witch hunt to begin which MM personally headed up and promoted all over the web. He even took down whole forums in the process. That kinda means it open season regarding this test.

To believe you can only hear it  in the room, or the car, is taking the easy way out.

For anyone to claim or believe these files don't represent anything that happened "in the room" is a convenient excuse and total lack of insight.

Title: Slings and arrows...
Post by: Jules on November 30, 2005, 10:59:14 AM
[quote title=Mixerman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 07:07]
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 19:06



I'll ask you this, Randy. Since none of the three Rs here ever seem to want to touch it. Why does Slipperman experience the same thing? Here's a guy that owns two rigs. Never disses Digidesign. Has used multiple configurations of rigs and cabling, with multiple configurations of people, And he's saying time after time after time, the bottom disappears. Could someone explain that?

Please. Explain that.

Here's a guy that makes record after record, the same way. 2" to Pro Tools. Every time. Low end loss. Every time.

Why?

None of you find that odd? None of you stop and say to yourselves, "Well that's weird." Two guys, that make records frequently and in a similar manner (2" to Pro Tools) have experienced the same exact problem, described in the same exact way, and they've never done a project together. That doesn't stop you in your tracks?

Of course not. Both Slipperman and I just hapen to be equally  incapable and incompetent in transferring a 2" tape into Pro Tools. Further, everyone and anyone that ever sets a foot in a room with us, is guaranteed to be equally as incomeptent and incapable of making the transfer as their boss. And yet somehow, I manage a transfer into just about any other digital box with no problems whatsoever.

Strange. Miraculous, even

Hey, I get not believing ME on this issue. That makes some sense. I mean, I made up a whole new terminology for the platform. But Slipperman? How DO you explain him? Because all I see is a bunch of ignoring where HIS claims are concerned. How come his feet aren't being held to the fire?

Isn't his claim just as irresponsible as mine? Shouldn't the torch-bearers be knocking on his door?

I'm not encouraging that, mind you. He's a stellar AE, a pillar of our community, and I consider him a friend. But he's not going to be making shit up for my benefit. So, tell me. Why doth thee ignoreth Slipperman, Brut
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 30, 2005, 11:17:37 AM
Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 09:54

Yeah and the easter bunny is real because some one said so?

Ron, many things in audio were dismissed for years before they were discovered. I have been around long enough to know that if guys that I work with, guys who cut and mix great sounding records all the time, say that something is amiss and I wasn't there to dispute the fact, then I'm not going to blindly refute their claims as ignorant or biased.

The world was flat for a long time...

There are things that happen in digital audio that I cannot explain, though they should be easy to explain as it's simply math, yet they don't seem to add up.

I'd rather continue investigating what may or may not be happening here than to dismiss it because we can't hear it in this test. Call me open-minded to a fault if you wish, call me ignorant if you wish, but I'd rather keep investigating than simply walk away proclaiming this to be the ultimate proof that no such problem exists, when several guys who I trust completely claim to have heard this issue...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 11:32:03 AM
"when several guys who I trust completely claim to have heard this issue... "

Well Brad, I have several guys or more who I know and trust that did not hear this issue, and they were there.

So this is just a question of who do you believe?

MM, Fletcher, Steve and your buddy,

versus,

Ron and his buddies,

versus

Lavry converters.

With all due respect, I think your connections to some here are creating an understandable but obvious bias.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 30, 2005, 11:38:18 AM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 11:17

I'd rather continue investigating what may or may not be happening here than to dismiss it because we can't hear it in this test.


I agree.  

However, it's important to point out that the test Mixerman is proposing is completely flawed, and his results will matter nada to me nor to plenty of other people.  Let's not kid ourselves -- the "LA Test" will be far less rigorous than the "Chicago Test" if he does what he says he is going to do.

I'm willing to accept hearsay for what it is.  Nothing more, though.

If this is important -- and I think it is -- then let's all put our heads together and take the time to derive a test (or tests) which have the highest chance of revealing the source of the problem, should one exist.  I'm willing to accept the possibility that the "Chicago test" had fundamental flaws in it, but I'm not willing to accept any results as being irrefutable if they don't come from a test which has even more scrutiny applied to proper methodology.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: archtop on November 30, 2005, 11:39:13 AM
most people that record to both analog and digital agree.

they don't sound the same.


Why a few of you want to crucify MM for this is totally weird
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 30, 2005, 11:39:15 AM
Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 10:32

I think your connections to some here are creating an understandable but obvious bias.

That's fine (and you've made that point quite obvious through this thread). I'll continue searching...
Title: Re: Slings and arrows...
Post by: Slipperman on November 30, 2005, 11:41:09 AM
Jules wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 10:59

Last time I checked, DAW wise, Slipperman's facility runs predominantly Logic Audio rigs with MOTU 192 interfaces and keeps a basic PT rig only for opening PT files of sessions done elsewhere.

Anyone got a light?


Not the case as of almost 2 years ago Jules!

JP, EF and AV are avowed PT guys. Each with his own rig as those guys bounce between here and their own shops. And I took the plunge with "Mobile Satan's Brother"(Mobile Satan was the old Mix+ rig we still have and use) in December of 2004 to make things easier for hi-bit rate stuff from other shops... and more compatible with the new building wide 'No imbedded gear' EDAC thing we've adopted.

I've also got 2 little Mbox rigs for 'healing' purposes in the edit rooms.

The age of "BD" as a routine client production expectation has been upon us for 2 years now. And when yer banging 60+ released projects a year.... You've basically got no choice in the matter.

You are correct in noting that I do have 500+ channels of MOTU 192 conversion in the building as well.


I find them hilariously similar sounding to the PT AD's out of the box... and some guys around here like them better than the PT stuff when clocked externally. In the end I don't think any of this shit is the difference between gold and platinum.

Just wanna clear this up before ANOTHER shitstorm blows.

Best regards to ya, hope all is going swimmingly.

SM.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: spoon on November 30, 2005, 11:42:47 AM
Ron Steele wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 20:05

Quote:

The way the end of this real test went down when some didn't get their desired results was bazaar, in my opinion.



Very well put Randy.

The problem I see here is that Steve Albini heard the bottom octave drop out, and Fletcher said he heard it plain as day.

Now, mixerman says there is no bottom octave after listening to it in his car.

Wasn't it mm who went on about the fact that you had to be in a proper acoustic enviorment to make any real informed opinion?

So I will interpret mixermans reply to mean,

{ and I don't believe or think this to be true myself for a second }  

that it is Steve Albini's fault for not providing any bottom octave in the source material to begin with, and a side note that Fletcher can't hear anything for shit.

And, he came to this conclusion while listening in his car?

Classic.

Wasn't it MM who said he had so much faith in Steve and Fletcher that this test could not get screwed up?

Well, he already said the test was flawed before he heard the files. Now, after listening to them in his car dithered to a CD,  we know that he thinks everybody who contributed to the test fucked it up, including the only 2 out of the 20 people that backed him up on his original claim.

That is what I call no class, and an extreme cognitive disconnect. Rolling Eyes


Ron you organized this event.  Everyone seems to be in agreement that it was good thing.  During the organization phase and during the first few pages of this post you remained very professional.   Committed to finding answers.  Then for some reason you started to reply to posts as if you were personally offended.  Your arguement gets lost in that type of noise.

I am not sure if you forgot what was said/written due to the length of this post or are intentionally misrepresenting what others have said but:

Steve and Fletcher heard the lack of bottom _during the transfers_.  From the undiluted (by ADA converstion) 2" and then comparing to the PT transfer.  They did _not_ comment on the 3 posted files which MM listened to.  You're mixing comments.

He said nothing of Steve Albini having any "fault" or any comment on Fletchers hearing.  That is an inflammatory "interpretation" on your part.

And in that same post he never said the test was fucked up or that anyone fucked it up.

I thought we were keeping this (somewhat) professional.

For the sake of others trying to learn from the Chicago test and from these posts (which are informative at some level) please do not confuse matters more with additional dis-information.

Most of us appreciate your contribution to this test...posts like this are ruining it.

Kind Regards,
David
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 30, 2005, 11:45:20 AM
I think it's more than "analog and digital don't sound the same".  I mean, that's obvious.  The more important questions (to me) are

* is digital incapable of properly archiving an analog recording
* is PT192 incapable of properly archiving an analog recording

The latter is Mixerman's claim in a nutshell, no?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 11:57:21 AM
"Why a few of you want to crucify MM for this is totally weird"

Why mixerman has tried to crucify digidesign for many years with his bass lite severe bass loss trip is slanderous, inflammatory and bizarre to say the very least. And when called on it he basically told everybody their full of shit.

The Chicago at the very least test proved, that we now have it narrowed down to bass below 40hz that only MM can hear, and he also qualified himself as the only person who can determine when it exists.

And, it only seems to be there when he is using PT, which he told me destroys audio. So he should at be able to pick out which file is which.
But he has found a convenient way out of that one as well.

I'd love to see him take a shot at it, but I don;t think he will be man enough to hang ass out there. It was just easier for him to claim the test was flawed in some way.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 30, 2005, 11:58:18 AM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 04:32

FWIW, I talked to a mixer buddy of mine who was at CRC when the test was going on and dropped in during the test. He told me that in the the room there was a definite loss on the bottom end.


In that case we need to compare the actual RADAR and Pro Tools files without the Lavry, SSL and Nuendo in the chain -- which is what I've suggested since the day after the test.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fig on November 30, 2005, 12:19:59 PM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 10:17

Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 09:54

Yeah and the easter bunny is real because some one said so?



The world was flat for a long time...


Using my metaphor for this ridiculousness, Brad, I must comment:

In those days of a flat Earth, when sailors didn't come back from a voyage, the assumption was that they fell off the edge of the Earth (it being flat in those days Rolling Eyes ).

Just because the Chicago test did not reveal the anomaly does not PROVE that MM's anomaly doesn't exist -- any more than sailors not returning proved the earth had an edge.

Many a voyage had to take place before the paths could be found to PROVE the world was round.  Then those paths were mapped so people could learn from them.  I suggest similar rigor in this debate.

BTW, just because MM can show the anomaly won't PROVE there is a problem with Alsihad, either.

Personally, and like you I think, Brad, I am more interested in WHAT CONDITIONS cause the anomaly.  The ONLY way I can think of finding those causes is to find a situation where the anomaly actually occurs - which is why I look forward to MM's test (which is really more of "another day at the office" than the type of testing that took place here in the Windy City).

For those that are not experiencing the anomaly, good for you - consider yourself master seamen and your ships impervious to the areas where beyond "there be dragons".

But for the respected and capable folks that are frustrated by this phantom that seems to come and go - let's find the truth in this.  Construct a situation where it DOES occur, and THEN get out the scopes and APs to find the culprits.

Its gotta be better than pointing fingers and resorting to childish behaviors that I am actually embarrassed to read, dontcha think?  Jeez!

Osci-later,

Fig






Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 30, 2005, 12:20:16 PM
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 03:54

The fact of the matter is that when you sat in that room there was a palpable loss of low end, as well as depth and dimension with the 192 rig.


Did you have the Nuendo system returning on a 2 track monitor position?  Why didn't they switch between console and Nuendo playback and immediately stop during the transfer and say "Woah!  This doesn't sound the same!" -- even during the RADAR transfer.  I take it you felt the RADAR didn't have the issue "in the room" -- sorry I find it unbelievable that you and Steve wouldn't have immediately stopped the test to figure out the problem with the Nuendo archiving scheme.

Either way though -- a comparison of the actual RADAR and Pro Tools files would definatively answer the question of if it was a monitor issue.

Rail
Title: Re: Q
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 12:27:23 PM
Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 23:07



Randy,

One of the first things you said to me when we spoke by phone was that you felt the material was terrible for judging the bottom octave.

That's what you said to me. You called the material terrible. You told me that you don't understand the decision to use this material. You claimed that the test was a waste with this material. Then you said, you wouldn't want to say any of that on the internet, because you wouldn't want to bash Steve Albini.

For the record, I'm not bashing or disrespecting Steve in any way. But if my car speakers aren't buzzing out from the material, well there ain't much sub information there. That's a fact. I know how my car stereo reacts to low end. I appreciate Steve taking the time to do this test, but I'm not going to just pretend it's got the kind of low end that I deal with on a regular occasion. Steve did nothing wrong. In fact, this test illustrates to me just how low the problem is. Before this, I thought it was a problem around 50hz. Now I know it's lower. So, the test certainly wasn't a waste as far as I'm concerned.

Now. You seem to think I'm the only one that feels this program material isn't adequate for judging the bottom octave. Aside from yourself, I'd like to point out a few others that feel similarly. For starters, I spoke with Brad Blackwood today. In my conversation with him, he didn't seem to feel there was any real sub information on these files.

The first thing that Digiengineer, who happens to be a personal friend, (you know, the kind of guy that and doesn't say one thing on the phone and then make up all sorts of other bullshit on the internet), he says to me, "Dude! It barely tickles my subwoofer."

CW Humphrey listens to the files and states the same thing. Where's the bottom octave?

It's like "where's the beef?" Only this is, "where's the bottom octave?" Eh. Not so catchy.

So, I'm not the only one saying this about these stereo files. Considering, I am the one that has experienced the loss of low-end problem when making this transfer, and not you; I think that I am the only one of the two of us wholly qualified to make the determination as to whether these files have the low-end information necessary or not.

Now, we have to wonder WHY these files don't have the subs. Perhaps Steve doesn't use that information in his work. I know some guys that use the HPF as a matter of course. Perhaps Steve does this. I don't know. I do know that the low end that I typically use in my work extends far lower than these files.

Again. Where's the bottom octave on these three files?

Hey! I know! Perhaps they are all Pro Tools files! Maybe the bias runs so deep on the other side of the fence (see vitriolic posts in this thread as evidence) that these are all the same files (perhaps with a slight bit of EQ just to give them some differentiation).

Or perhaps, the guy who chopped these up, fucked up! Perhaps the chopper guy used all the same files by accident. That would be operator error, right?

Maybe the cable was fucked up into the stereo recorder. Or perhaps someone had a HPF strapped to the Nuendo.

I mean, those are the sorts of things that have been used to explain my results. Surely, if these are valid explanation where I'm concerned, they are equally valid where the participants of this test are concerned.

Ridiculous? Perhaps. But poignant, methinks.

Setting that aside.

I'll ask you this, Randy. Since none of the three Rs here ever seem to want to touch it. Why does Slipperman experience the same thing? Here's a guy that owns two rigs. Never disses Digidesign. Has used multiple configurations of rigs and cabling, with multiple configurations of people, And he's saying time after time after time, the bottom disappears. Could someone explain that?

Please. Explain that.

Here's a guy that makes record after record, the same way. 2" to Pro Tools. Every time. Low end loss. Every time.

Why?

None of you find that odd? None of you stop and say to yourselves, "Well that's weird." Two guys, that make records frequently and in a similar manner (2" to Pro Tools) have experienced the same exact problem, described in the same exact way, and they've never done a project together. That doesn't stop you in your tracks?

Of course not. Both Slipperman and I just hapen to be equally  incapable and incompetent in transferring a 2" tape into Pro Tools. Further, everyone and anyone that ever sets a foot in a room with us, is guaranteed to be equally as incomeptent and incapable of making the transfer as their boss. And yet somehow, I manage a transfer into just about any other digital box with no problems whatsoever.

Strange. Miraculous, even

Hey, I get not believing ME on this issue. That makes some sense. I mean, I made up a whole new terminology for the platform. But Slipperman? How DO you explain him? Because all I see is a bunch of ignoring where HIS claims are concerned. How come his feet aren't being held to the fire?

Isn't his claim just as irresponsible as mine? Shouldn't the torch-bearers be knocking on his door?

I'm not encouraging that, mind you. He's a stellar AE, a pillar of our community, and I consider him a friend. But he's not going to be making shit up for my benefit. So, tell me. Why doth thee ignoreth Slipperman, Brut
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 12:32:50 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 09:20

Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 03:54

The fact of the matter is that when you sat in that room there was a palpable loss of low end, as well as depth and dimension with the 192 rig.


Did you have the Nuendo system returning on a 2 track monitor position?  Why didn't they switch between console and Nuendo playback and immediately stop during the transfer and say "Woah!  This doesn't sound the same!" -- even during the RADAR transfer.  I take it you felt the RADAR didn't have the issue "in the room" -- sorry I find it unbelievable that you and Steve wouldn't have immediately stopped the test to figure out the problem with the Nuendo archiving scheme.

Either way though -- a comparison of the actual RADAR and Pro Tools files would definatively answer the question of if it was a monitor issue.

Rail




That's what's so lame about this 24/96 nuendo stance.

Everybody is in "test" ears mode, they listen back to the files and day 1 through 3 after the test all that was said is that the differences weren't as severe.  

NOT that the playback of the files lacked balls, or had the bottom end gone.

Albini said the mid range was harsher but not that the bottom was gone.

Fletcher claimed he heard day and night differences in the files that a deaf person could hear.  Now that difference is gone?  Funny!

The is a hedge of strange magnitudes.
Title: Re: Q
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 12:56:29 PM
Mixerman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 23:07



Oh, fuck. I'm going Shakespeare. That's my cue!

Enjoy,

Mixerman



By the way, the post you are responing to is not from me, although somehow my name is there.  I believe that was a Ron Steele post.

At least go after me on something I wrote.  What's up with that?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Plush on November 30, 2005, 01:08:23 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 09:54

Brad Blackwood wrote:

"I certainly can't explain it either, but am unwilling to dismiss what Fletcher and Mr. Albini (and my buddy) heard in the room. "

   ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------

Yeah and the easter bunny is real because some one said so?



Hello Ron,
I have talked to some people who were at your test.
When you dismiss those that heard bass loss in real time at your test I must ask, "Where is your professional decorum?"
Your dismissal is cause for a whipping!

If a trained listener said they heard something and you said,
"it didn't happen" I'd tell you, quoting Ditka, to "get your mouth shut."

Your attacks on what was actually heard would never be permitted at a Chicago EARS meeting.

YOur Nuendo files have corrupted the listening sessions--no doubt due to "pilot error." We have never used and would never use Protools for serious work. We use SADiE where bit accurate transfers are a proven working method.




 
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 30, 2005, 01:18:42 PM
Plush wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 13:08


YOur Nuendo files have corrupted the listening sessions--no doubt due to "pilot error."


Talk about unprofessional!  Without any empirical evidence whatsoever, you not only diagnose the source of the error but the cause?  Give me a break.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 30, 2005, 01:20:56 PM
So everyone went down to the studio to check out the bass loss of Pro Tools vs Radar vs Analog, heard the loss, and then said nothing when Albini asked the room?  One thing engineers have are opinions.  I can't imagine everyone staying silent.

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 01:26:35 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 10:20

So everyone went down to the studio to check out the bass loss of Pro Tools vs Radar vs Analog, heard the loss, and then said nothing when Albini asked the room?  One thing engineers have are opinions.  I can't imagine everyone staying silent.

Steve


Of course - Hindsight is 20/20 and the Lavry was not able to capture the sound of the stereo output as well as an HHB CD burner could have, for example.

Or the Nuendo screwed up the files.

But the REAL issues is the 192?

If the audio folks on the side of 24/96 Lavry ruining the files were serious about anything, they should be on this in a second.

They can even work on 2" yet have their mixes sound like Pro Tools by using a high level converter.

Absurd.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 30, 2005, 01:43:43 PM
And I am so with Steve here.

On this topic, I see people that are standing on the most basic accepted of principles, being called out with pseudo-aural assertions.

I call bullshit. If you think that is grounds for attacking me personally, have at it, but reality doesn't change, not one iota.

Have people detected a drop of 6db @ 50hz? No.

Is there a psycho-acoustic elephant in the room? It obviously depends on where you are standing.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 02:00:02 PM
Let's look At some FACTS.

Bob O said he could hear too much bottom dropping from the files when adding a 30 HZ hi pass.  One would tend to think there is extended bottom end even if it's not as "loud" as another engineer may want it to be.

Rick K's sprectroanalproctograph showed "plenty" of energy down at 28HZ.

Let's take the absurd contention that the Lavry Nuendo combo chopped off some bottom end.  Does anybody really believe that IF that happened, it would have just happened to be the same frequencies that the 192 would have chopped off?

If there was "enough" bottom end or not on the 16 track 2" is opinion.  Did it transfer what was there from bottom to top.

The ONLY question is was the bottom end severely different on any of these 3 files?

And if not, can anyone with a straight face, claim that the Lavry Nuendo combo got "lucky" and hid just that specific low end problem?

I guess we could go with the studio when "chopping" the files mixed them up and chaanged the sound.....  That was an interesting one.

And, by the way, what does this test have to do with how good Slipperman's chops are?  He's awesome.  This wasn't his test.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Plush on November 30, 2005, 02:14:07 PM
Jimmyjazz wrote:"Talk about unprofessional! Without any empirical evidence whatsoever, you not only diagnose the source of the error but the cause? Give me a break."
---------------------------------------
Not unprofessional at all!
Since even a dat machine will record the source material
faithfully, there was, obviously, a mistake made.

My whole point in my prior post was that trained pro's
said they heard a difference and a partisan responded that
they didn't hear it. In my posts of last week, I posit that
evaluating the files in ANY situation other than real time
listening is a corrupt practice. I stick by that assertion.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 30, 2005, 02:29:10 PM
Brad, I think you?re falling victim to someone's revisionist history.

Above you wrote, "No one seems to be willing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe what was observed in the room was not captured in the files."

Brad, let?s go back to the facts.

1) At the test, Steve put the question out there...does anyone hear a loss of bass in the Pro Tools file?  Not a single hand went up.  So at that point, a full 100% of the participants went on record as observing no bass loss in the room. (Perhaps we should have made them swear on a stack of PT manuals?)  

2) Files were meticulously created, using Lavry Blues and Nuendo, both "politically neutral" pieces.  Not surprisingly, the files fully happen to corroborate what was observed in the room (no substantive bass loss perceived).

3) After the tests were over, the equipment torn down, everyone back home and with no one able to respond to charges on site, a small (10%) percentage of the participants (Steve and Fletcher) say, "I"m changing my official position.  I did hear bass loss".  Unless we hear from more of the participants, that leaves a full 90% who still feel that their original positions were correct, no bass loss.

So when you talk about "what was observed in the room", please keep in mind that for 90% of the participants, who happen to be fully supported by the resulting files, no bass loss was observed in the room.  

Unless I'm missing something, that's factual history.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on November 30, 2005, 02:34:37 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 12:20

Why didn't they switch between console and Nuendo playback and immediately stop during the transfer and say "Woah!  This doesn't sound the same!" -- even during the RADAR transfer.  


Because that was NOT part of the stated methodology that was agreed upon in the thread that outlined the methodology of the test.

Ya know, I wouldn't have thrown that pass over the middle to Deion Branch last Sunday... I don't know what Tom Brady was thinking... especially throwing it as high as he did.

Bloody hell.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 02:41:05 PM
Plush wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 11:14

Jimmyjazz wrote:"Talk about unprofessional! Without any empirical evidence whatsoever, you not only diagnose the source of the error but the cause? Give me a break."
---------------------------------------
Not unprofessional at all!
Since even a dat machine will record the source material
faithfully, there was, obviously, a mistake made.

My whole point in my prior post was that trained pro's
said they heard a difference and a partisan responded that
they didn't hear it. In my posts of last week, I posit that
evaluating the files in ANY situation other than real time
listening is a corrupt practice. I stick by that assertion.  



So your assertion is that these same pros, who were the anti digi folks by the way, were able to hear differences in the room BUT as soon as the files were played back, they didn't stop and say, Hang on ALL the bottom is gone? Ummmm.  Adding they KNEW what source they were listening to.

How so?

Then it's needs to be explained how Fletcher claimed he heard "day and fucking night differences that you would have to be deafer than a fence post not to hear" ON THE VERY SAME NUENDO FILES!!!!

So, the people who hear live differences had great ears that weren't somehow able to detect the corruption of the Neundo files in the same room?  Speaking of UNprofessional.  Do you think maybe they would have listened back to the mix files for that possible issue?

Yet one PRO did hear day and night differences on the files you have?

How so?

By the way, I agree a DAT could capture this as well.  That's the point.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on November 30, 2005, 02:45:15 PM
The Resonater wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 14:29

 a small (10%) percentage of the participants (Steve and Fletcher) say, ?I?m changing my official position.  I did hear bass loss?.


Uhhh, not so.  This was mentioned in conversation with Gannon and Azoulas during the event... Steve and I also spoke of it openly during the proceeding [before the A/B/which one of these is not like the others horseshit].

There has been no change in a got damn thing by me, nor anyone else.  Ron was sitting next to me during the majority of the prints and more than a couple of times we looked at other with the "damn" look... there were a couple of things that surprised me as a positive PT experience... but there was a palpable "alteration" of the low end [especially at 96k]... as well as the mids and the highs and the signal in general.

For the umpteenth time I will say that while I heard a decrease in the overall bottom and depth of the audio it wasn't __ @ ___Hz... but it was palpable none the less.

As for revisionist history... you've read 6 newspaper accounts and 18 magazine articles... that doesn't mean you were there, that doesn't mean you heard what was heard in the room.  If you had been there, if you had been in the 'lounge' grabbing a sandwich or a [most excellent for non NY] slice of Pizza you'd have heard the conversation... but you weren't fucking there so you couldn't have heard the conversation ergo you can not speak with any authority on what was or wasn't said in the room(s) during the event.

BTW, I didn't have a beer until the conclusion of the A/B/X nonsense... I was [unfortunately] sober as a judge [mainly because I was there to be a judge].
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 30, 2005, 02:45:53 PM
Just because the files don't show the stated loss, doesn't mean I don't believe the people who have reported it.

I have said this before.

The only thing I don't have here, is the same rig, and room, I wouldn't think that'd make a difference.. Rolling Eyes  Analysis of the files reveals no problem.

Bob O said he has experienced this problem. I trust Bob's ears. I think he's *not insane*.. but still, the problem doesn't seem to leave the room.

I'd kinda like to see people just try to forget about it all, and move-on.org.com.gov.biz.

(I also wish I had vacation property on the Moon)


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 02:48:50 PM
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 11:34

Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 12:20

Why didn't they switch between console and Nuendo playback and immediately stop during the transfer and say "Woah!  This doesn't sound the same!" -- even during the RADAR transfer.  


Because that was NOT part of the stated methodology that was agreed upon in the thread that outlined the methodology of the test.

Ya know, I wouldn't have thrown that pass over the middle to Deion Branch last Sunday... I don't know what Tom Brady was thinking... especially throwing it as high as he did.

Bloody hell.



The methtodology didn't include listening back to the mix files?  

People in the room who heard the differences live were suddenly unable to hear that the Lavry/Nuendo combo was as bad as the 192 or worse?

Come on in 18 or so people nobody said, wheres the beef?

This is goofy.

Bloody Hell indeed.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 30, 2005, 02:54:04 PM
Maybe I can clarify what I heard. There definitely was an audible change from high-passing any of the files, and it was more than I expected. I'm really speaking of the bass drum in second half of the clip. The material below 50 is mostly mud as opposed to significant musical low frequency information. The area that rattles my car speakers is around 70-80 and there indeed wasn't a whole lot to be found there.

Again, I think we need to begin by having mixerman reproduce the problem. Otherwise the possibilities and arguments will remain endless.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 02:59:04 PM
plush,

You seem to forget that I was in the room with "some people".

No hands went up, that is what others our dismissing. I was the one who asked for the 2" to be played a second time. There was a dam good reason for that, as it gave us all a fresh look after hearing the PT playback. Still know hands.

Anybody could have said anything they wanted but didn't. So just consider what you call "attacks" as true observations of what really happened that can be easily verified.  If you want, I'll even bring the proof to your next ears meeting.

And Ditka, wouldn't put up with other bullshit that you know nothing about.

As for you insinuating there was" pilot error ", why don't you go over to CRC and tell that to the tech staff in person and see what they say.

As for SADIE, I heard it was always a great and stable product, but it is not the topic of discussion here and it never had anything to do with this
test.




Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 30, 2005, 02:59:12 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 14:54


Again, I think we need to begin by having mixerman reproduce the problem. Otherwise the possibilities and arguments will remain endless.


I'd like to signup for your newsletter.

Very Happy


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 03:03:15 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 11:54

Maybe I can clarify what I heard. There definitely was an audible change from high-passing any of the files, and it was more than I expected. I'm really speaking of the bass drum in second half of the clip. The material below 50 is mostly mud as opposed to significant musical low frequency information. The area that rattles my car speakers is around 70-80 and there indeed wasn't a whole lot to be found there.

Again, I think we need to begin by having mixerman reproduce the problem. Otherwise the possibilities and arguments will remain endless.


Mud or not, either the bottom octave is there or it isn't.

Doesn't matter what it sounds like.

I will stay on the NOT ONE PERSON said at the time, that when they started the ABX test that all the bottom was gone.

These are the people there LIVE who say they know what they heard.  To me, it sounds very much like selective hearing.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 03:08:16 PM
"The area that rattles my car speakers is around 70-80 and there indeed wasn't a whole lot to be found there."

"

So we are back to examining test files in cars?

Come on BOB, you know better then that.

This has really become insane.

I know, let's run some tie-lines out the window from CRC to my car and see what we can hear. Maybe that will help to solve the whole lavry/nuendo thing.

No, then it might be that my car stereo was the wrong one and a piece of shit for critical "in the car" listening.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bluedog on November 30, 2005, 03:09:19 PM
Randy,

Your posts are without fail, logical, honest and right on the money.  Thanks for fighting the good fight.  

The response to this test has been classic Karl Rove: if the truth doesn't serve the agenda, then "Swift Boat" that sucker. This industry is rife with blowhards who think that for them to be good, others have to suck.  A song my friend wrote called "Never Argue With a Liar", keeps coming to mind...

The test is valid; there is no inherent problem with the 192.  If you're still experiencing the problem, hire a good tech, a good shrink, or a good Dr. (though I don't think they can treat selective hearing loss).

I suppose there is some evidence that a very large ego can act as a bass-trap when it's actually in the room.  Hmm... new test?

-Bruce Robertson
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 30, 2005, 03:14:04 PM
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 19:45

The Resonater wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 14:29

 a small (10%) percentage of the participants (Steve and Fletcher) say, ?I?m changing my official position.  I did hear bass loss?.


Uhhh, not so.  This was mentioned in conversation with Gannon and Azoulas during the event... Steve and I also spoke of it openly during the proceeding [before the A/B/which one of these is not like the others horseshit].



Fletcher, there has been no mention of this so far...here's Gannon's original post, "There were 18 listeners in the room. Prior to the blind tests, Steve asked the room if anyone detected a loss of low end as that's what originally set out to check. Not a single hand went up. It didn't seem like anybody heard a discernable loss of low frequency information at all".

There has been no other post on this thread that confirms that you spoke "openly" about it with Steve at the time.  Not saying you didn't, but if you had wouldn't people have asked you, "well, why didn't you raise your hand" or "why don't we investigate your claims?"

So, during the initial test WHERE YOU KNEW WHICH PLATFORM WAS WHICH, you said nothing according to Gannon.  Is he incorrect in his post?


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on November 30, 2005, 03:19:00 PM
The Resonater wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 13:29

Brad, I think you?re falling victim to someone's revisionist history.

No, I can't logically believe that anything changed, I'm just not willing to completely slam the door on the possibility that these guys are right.

Ever see '12 Angry Men'? I'm just Henry Fonda - I have no idea who's right or wrong, but even though I generally believe that the resulting files likely depict what happened in the room, I also think it's worth going over a bit.

Just in case...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on November 30, 2005, 03:22:55 PM
excuse me for saying this, but it has seemed clear to that:

IF there WAS more bass on a playback in the room it was from the complete ANALOG pass -- no converters, not A/D D/A.  (i am not saying there was or was not)

[this is, if i understand, step #9 in the methodology.  or some other part of the process.]

OR

there was listener's bias based on KNOWING which medium was playing back the mix.

all this static is practically pointless though i have great respect for most of you here.

seems that, as i think rail and a few others suggested, the only way to solve this is to have a blind test where the participants hear a complete analog pass, a PT and a RADAR pass.  A/B/X.

these files show no severe loss.  and the only way to verify mr. albini's and mr. fletcher's and the mysterious R&B guy's claims, are to test like that and not judge based on LAVRY/NUENDO files.

perhaps  i am wrong, but it seems simple to me.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 30, 2005, 03:23:40 PM
Fletcher,

Part 2.

If you had heard this at the testing, why didn't you bring it to Gannon's attention at the time so he could comment, investigate, etc?

I mean, bear with me here...let's imagine the shoe on the other foot.  Someone gets back home from the test and says, "I heard a loss of bass in the Radar...it was plain as day, although no one raised their hand when asked if anyone perceived it."

I think your very natural response would be the very questions we have...

1)  Why didn't you raise your hand to say that Radar was bass shy?
2)  Why didn't you bring it to my attention on the spot so I could investigate, etc?

These would be reasonable questions, if the entire premise of the test was to verify whether or not Radar was losing low end in transfers, no?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 30, 2005, 03:30:48 PM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 15:19


I'm just Henry Fonda


Finally! I have been trying to figure out who you really are for a long time.

I am Jimmy Durante.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Mixerman on November 30, 2005, 03:35:13 PM
45 posts went up since I asked someone to explain why Slipperman is describing precisely the same problem, occurring from precisely the same process--yet only two people have addressed it. Jules; suggesting that Slipperman doesn't use Digi products, which is wrong. And Rail; suggesting that his friendship with me would cause him to lie.

The rest of you have completely ignored the question. I'll repeat the premise along with the actual question, for those of you that have missed it.

Could someone please explain why Slipperman is finding the exact same problem, with multiple people, with multiple rigs, with multiple transfer scenarios, in different countires even.

WHY, is Slipperman and myself, who do this sort of transfer every day, finding this problem to be persistent and repeatable for well over three years?

Why?

Answer that question.

I'll be back at midnight to read the 60 posts (30 if we don't count Randy) that continue to ignore that very telling question. Or is it the blatant ignoring that's telling?

Enjoy,

Mixerman

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 03:45:18 PM
"Could someone please explain why Slipperman is finding the exact same problem, with multiple people, with multiple rigs, with multiple transfer scenarios, in different countires even."

Because were all to busy trying to figure where the bass went with this test. Nobody seems to know.

It's just lost somewhere in the SSL room at CRC I guess.

But then again, you cleared that issue up when you listened to the files in you car.

Also, have you ever been in the same room .....or car.... with slipperman confirming that the two of you are even hearing the.... exact.... thing.

Maybe slipperman can post a before and after so we can HEAR what he SAYS is happening.

What do you think?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Eric Rudd on November 30, 2005, 03:51:50 PM
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 13:34



Bloody hell.




Bloody hell is right.

I guess I'll weigh in with some thoughts since everyone else has.

First off, I was trained that if I run into a situation where something appears not to be working properly, or doesn't sound quite right, or smells funny, to do as much trouble shooting as I possibly could before I reported it to maintenance. If I still felt that there was a problem, then I'd write up a trouble report describing in detail all the steps necessary to recreate the problem. And in enough detail that the problem was recreate-able even if I wasn't in the room (as was often the case when maintenance came in after the session had ended and I'd gone home).

I run the studios at Chicago Public Radio the same way.

If the problem turned out that I had done something stupid, like not swap out a cable that turned out to be single-ended, or failed to align a channel of the Dolby rack properly, I received a P.E. ..... pilot error. This was maintenance's way of letting you know that you didn't do your homework. It trains the staff to take responsibility for their sessions.

Sometimes the problem is not recreate-able. In this case I might mention it to maintenance but I probably wouldn't flag it as "something not right" or broken. If time allows we might get together to brainstorm what variables might be contributing to the perceived situation or problem. Conversations like "well, did you try this or that?" and "maybe next time see if this might be the culprit."

The problem here is....every single step away from the exact situation encountered by Mixerman ...and I mean every step....makes the problem more difficult to recreate. As soon as a test involves a different studio, or computer, or project file....someone will find fault with the results or methodology.

Now I listened to the three files. Did I hear a drastic loss in low end? No. Based on what I heard, there didn't exist a sonic result that I would equate to what was implied by M.M.'s original observation. Would I have picked that particular material to judge low end? Probably not. But then, that's another step away from the original conditions. Would I have done my own test the same way? No, probably not that either.

But I'm not bashing M.M. I familiar with his work and very much respect him as an engineer. Hell, he's mixed stuff I tracked. Fletcher does good work too. Love the El Camino stuff. It's great. Bob Olhsson lived down the street from me in Nashville and I regret not having the opporunity to take him to lunch to pick his brain and shoot the shit. As for what the attending listeners of the Chicago test did or did not hear....I don't really care. I wasn't there to listen and form my own opinion. The files I downloaded were yet another step taken....I took listening to them with a grain of salt.

Cutting to the chase...it's Mixerman's responsibility to provide enough information to exactly duplicate the results he's encountered. This is made quadruple difficult due to the fact that others might want to recreate it in their own environs. But if we can't do that...we owe a little respect for one other in how we respond. All this talk about agendas, and bias, and whatever is complete bullshit. We should continue the dialog about what we all think might contribute to a loss of low end (or a smearing of mids, or hyped high end, or...) We may never know if pilot error was involved, because the original situation is loooooong gone. Hopefully MM can get it to happen again, or give more information. I for one am glad MM is doing his own test. It's part of the process of problem solving.

That's enough for now. I've lost my train of thought.

All the best,

Eric Rudd
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 03:57:45 PM
Mixerman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 12:35

45 posts went up since I asked someone to explain why Slipperman is describing precisely the same problem, occurring from precisely the same process--yet only two people have addressed it. Jules; suggesting that Slipperman doesn't use Digi products, which is wrong. And Rail; suggesting that his friendship with me would cause him to lie.

The rest of you have completely ignored the question. I'll repeat the premise along with the actual question, for those of you that have missed it.

Could someone please explain why Slipperman is finding the exact same problem, with multiple people, with multiple rigs, with multiple transfer scenarios, in different countires even.

WHY, is Slipperman and myself, who do this sort of transfer every day, finding this problem to be persistent and repeatable for well over three years?

Why?

Answer that question.

I'll be back at midnight to read the 60 posts (30 if we don't count Randy) that continue to ignore that very telling question. Or is it the blatant ignoring that's telling?

Enjoy,

Mixerman





You can try and divert attention from this test all day long.

You can attempt to insult me, but what's new?

But the fact remains that you are raising a huge smoke screen.

Don't let the smoke cloud your judgement.



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on November 30, 2005, 04:28:05 PM
The Resonater wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 15:23

If you had heard this at the testing, why didn't you bring it to Gannon's attention at the time so he could comment, investigate, etc?


Did.  

Not in accusatory manner that would have indicated an immediate response but in casual conversation throughout the evening.

You make this seem like this was an "us vs. them" kind of thing.  It wasn't.  You're making this thread an "us vs. them" kind of thing... which is why it is now in the saloon where tempers can flair, you can pound your shoe on the dais, and you can continue to say that everyone except you is full of shit.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on November 30, 2005, 04:31:30 PM
 Surprised  Thank GOD!

Everyone (except me) is full of shit!

Let the truth ring!


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 30, 2005, 04:39:13 PM
Gannon,

There's your cue to confirm or deny.  

Fletcher, Gannon has never mentioned anything like that, nor do I presume this is an "us vs them" issue.  The early reports from Ron, Gannon and even yourself made no mention of such discussion, and in fact, had pointed to the contrary...that there was no such substantive discussion.

And, at the end of the day, the fact remains that the files seem to coincide with what the initial reports were...no loss of low end in the transfer.  And now you point to 96k, which you had originally asked for and/or Lavry/Nuendo problems?

Fletcher, you're really stretching.

Thanks for your time in the tests, though.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 30, 2005, 04:43:38 PM
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 16:28

The Resonater wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 15:23

If you had heard this at the testing, why didn't you bring it to Gannon's attention at the time so he could comment, investigate, etc?


Did.  

Not in accusatory manner that would have indicated an immediate response but in casual conversation throughout the evening.

You make this seem like this was an "us vs. them" kind of thing.  It wasn't.  You're making this thread an "us vs. them" kind of thing... which is why it is now in the saloon where tempers can flair, you can pound your shoe on the dais, and you can continue to say that everyone except you is full of shit.



Unfortunately, Fletcher, the "us versus them" thing has already been coded into the DNA of these groups and I don't need to point out how.  However, in my conversations with Gannon I'm impressed at how much he's willing to ignore the incendiary nonsense and how open minded he is to these criticisms.  I picture him standing there with his ears open and his pencil poised at his notebook.  And I envision the same about you.  If there is a real problem with the 192's I think the Digi guys really want to know about it--if nothing else, it gives them an excuse to sell everyone a new and improved converter.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 04:50:04 PM
RKrizman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 13:43

Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 16:28

The Resonater wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 15:23

If you had heard this at the testing, why didn't you bring it to Gannon's attention at the time so he could comment, investigate, etc?


Did.  

Not in accusatory manner that would have indicated an immediate response but in casual conversation throughout the evening.

You make this seem like this was an "us vs. them" kind of thing.  It wasn't.  You're making this thread an "us vs. them" kind of thing... which is why it is now in the saloon where tempers can flair, you can pound your shoe on the dais, and you can continue to say that everyone except you is full of shit.



Unfortunately, Fletcher, the "us versus them" thing has already been coded into the DNA of these groups and I don't need to point out how.  However, in my conversations with Gannon I'm impressed at how much he's willing to ignore the incendiary nonsense and how open minded he is to these criticisms.  I picture him standing there with his ears open and his pencil poised at his notebook.  And I envision the same about you.  If there is a real problem with the 192's I think the Digi guys really want to know about it--if nothing else, it gives them an excuse to sell everyone a new and improved converter.

-R


I really am in that photo with Led Zepplin, it's just that the camera didn't have a wide enough lens to catch it.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 30, 2005, 05:00:43 PM
Wow, what a shitstorm.  And it seems so needless.  First of all, I can't imagine wanting to hear any more ultra low end on this particular material, nor can I expect SA to accomplish in a rough-mix scenario any further finessing of the low end.  The low end is certainly there, in spite of a large frequency peak in the low hundreds.  I can hear it when I clik a highpass in and out very clearly.  I can also hear a difference between those three files and stand by my claim that #11 is Protools, 12 is Radar and 10 is tape.    If I'm wrong, so be it.  At least I'll learn something.

And I have to say, trying to slide the turd into Slipperman's shoe is hilarious.


-R

As an aside, I also did a frequency analysis of one of my favorite Ben Harper tunes, the mix of which I really enjoy, and noted that the relationship between the amount of ultralow frequency content and the "meat" area in the low hundreds and the rest of the freq spectrum was very similar to SA's track.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Chris Lambrechts on November 30, 2005, 05:11:45 PM
Mixerman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 21:35

45 posts went up since I blah blah blah
Why?

Answer that question.

I'll be back at midnight to read the 60 posts (30 if we don't count Randy) that continue to ignore that very telling question. Or is it the blatant ignoring that's telling?

Enjoy,

Mixerman




God knows why I even bother to ... whatever .... 33 pages in which I've been looking for you to have an opinion about the 3 files. Maybe I missed it ... yeah yeah ... I know ... listening present room loss blah blah .... yet no opinion on the 3 files .... again ... whatever ....

I sometimes wonder for whom I should have more respect ... you or your maid (the one that can actually HEAR the difference)

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 05:27:11 PM
The Resonater wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 13:39

Gannon,

There's your cue to confirm or deny.  

Fletcher, Gannon has never mentioned anything like that, nor do I presume this is an "us vs them" issue.  The early reports from Ron, Gannon and even yourself made no mention of such discussion, and in fact, had pointed to the contrary...that there was no such substantive discussion.

And, at the end of the day, the fact remains that the files seem to coincide with what the initial reports were...no loss of low end in the transfer.  And now you point to 96k, which you had originally asked for and/or Lavry/Nuendo problems?

Fletcher, you're really stretching.

Thanks for your time in the tests, though.





Albini did say in a post that

<<I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative.>>

And

<< Still, it remains that when I asked the question, nobody's hand shot up. I remain baffled by this, as the "bass problem," as part of the bundle of differences between the original and the copies, was plainly evident to me. Evident to the extent that it changed my emotional response to the mix balance, caused me to consider the matter settled and move on to other things. I felt exactly as if I had been in the room with a brilliant strobe light, and when I asked if anyone saw it, everyone said "what strobe light?">>

And

<< This brings us to the Nuendo files. I had a really hard time listening to these snippets during the A/B/X tests. I thought they sounded uniformly nasty and harsh, although I thought I could distinguish some differences. I had no confidence in many of my answers, and declined to hazard a guess on two of the tests. I got exactly nine-of-sixteen, two unanswered. Not significantly better than you could expect from tossing a coin.>>

And

<< Throughout the evening, there were observations and preferences made about the different systems being auditioned that weren't borne-out in the ABX testing. There were some correlations of better-than-random, but with such a small sample size, I have little confidence in these results. It will be interesting to see if the much larger sample size made possible by posting the files increases the correllation.>>

He has class.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: groucho on November 30, 2005, 05:33:48 PM
Quote:


As an aside, I also did a frequency analysis of one of my favorite Ben Harper tunes, the mix of which I really enjoy, and noted that the relationship between the amount of ultralow frequency content and the "meat" area in the low hundreds and the rest of the freq spectrum was very similar to SA's track.


I've been wondering if I was the only one who slapped a frequency analyzer on the tracks and noted that there is indeed plenty of sub-50hz content.

Unless I'm missing something Mixerman's SOLE response to the entire test so far is to say that there was no low end to begin with, so the whole thing is invalid.

This is such a transparent dodge I'm astounded anyone is still even paying attention to him. In any other community his credibility would be considered blown. Yet people still continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. Amazing.

What really cracks me up is the people who say "anything other than an in-the-room test is invalid." So, like the fact that the apparant "problem" is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REPRODUCE shouldn't slow us down at all?Smile

Reading this thread, one could be forgiven for arriving at the conclusion that most professional engineers are both stone crazy and stone deaf.

Read it now, before it's deleted...
Chris



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 30, 2005, 05:41:40 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 17:27

Albini did say in a post that


<< Still, it remains that when I asked the question, nobody's hand shot up. I remain baffled by this, as the "bass problem," as part of the bundle of differences between the original and the copies, was plainly evident to me. Evident to the extent that it changed my emotional response to the mix balance, caused me to consider the matter settled and move on to other things. I felt exactly as if I had been in the room with a brilliant strobe light, and when I asked if anyone saw it, everyone said "what strobe light?">>

And

<< This brings us to the Nuendo files. I had a really hard time listening to these snippets during the A/B/X tests. I thought they sounded uniformly nasty and harsh, although I thought I could distinguish some differences. >> etc



It's clear that Albini just doesn't like digital.  The only thing that's getting any thumbs up for sounding better than anything else (and even then not unanimously) is the 2" playing in the room before any conversion.  But whatever that "thing" is it apparently didn't survive Protools, Radar or the Lavry's

It's easy to believe that some people would prefer the sound of analog into a console before it's converted to digital--it's not a lossless transfer and nobody has claimed that it is.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 30, 2005, 05:42:05 PM
minister wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 15:22

seems that, as i think rail and a few others suggested, the only way to solve this is to have a blind test where the participants hear a complete analog pass, a PT and a RADAR pass.  A/B/X.


Take RADAR out of the equation.  It's not part of Mixerman's original assertion -- PT192 is "bass shy".  Compare analog off the 2" with a PT192 transfer from that analog.  Double blind.  In a quality room, with a quality console, set up to equivalent levels by a quality tech.  One person at a time.  In the mix position.  No beer.

I'd suggest a couple of different mixdowns for archival purposes -- analog and CD through top-notch converters, perhaps -- but those are "one step removed", as someone else has alluded to.  The important thing is not to have the rest of the world judge the results, but for the test participants to judge the results.

Repeat for analog vs. RADAR if it makes you feel good.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 05:51:27 PM
RKrizman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 14:41

R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 17:27

Albini did say in a post that


<< Still, it remains that when I asked the question, nobody's hand shot up. I remain baffled by this, as the "bass problem," as part of the bundle of differences between the original and the copies, was plainly evident to me. Evident to the extent that it changed my emotional response to the mix balance, caused me to consider the matter settled and move on to other things. I felt exactly as if I had been in the room with a brilliant strobe light, and when I asked if anyone saw it, everyone said "what strobe light?">>

And

<< This brings us to the Nuendo files. I had a really hard time listening to these snippets during the A/B/X tests. I thought they sounded uniformly nasty and harsh, although I thought I could distinguish some differences. >> etc



It's clear that Albini just doesn't like digital.  The only thing that's getting any thumbs up for sounding better than anything else (and even then not unanimously) is the 2" playing in the room before any conversion.  But whatever that "thing" is it apparently didn't survive Protools, Radar or the Lavry's

It's easy to believe that some people would prefer the sound of analog into a console before it's converted to digital--it's not a lossless transfer and nobody has claimed that it is.

-R



Yet he didn't say that the Nuendo files lost all the bottom end.  Harsh, nasty whatever you call it is not the same as the same person describing bottom end loss.  He was very clear on how to explain bottom end loss.

One would think if now the bass was gone on all files, that would have been easy to say day 1.

"Hey, we did the test and pro tools dropped the bottom end to the floor but the Lavry dropped it into the basement, so please ignore the files."  

But these great ears who could hear it plain as day "live", when knowing the source, had ear failure en mass once it went through the Lavry.

Never happened.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 06:06:03 PM
"No beer."

I'm really getting tired of  hearing about the beer.

I bought 2 cases. at the end of the night there was at least a 12 pack left. A case and a half is not enough to fuck up 20 or  more people to the point where they won't hear well or focus. Also, when SA asked the question, it was early in the evening, so not much beer had been consumed at that point.

It's a poor excuse and cop-out at the very least, and an insulting accusation that the Chicago boys were all fucked up.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 06:30:07 PM
Ron,

The test was mapped out very well and agreed upon.  It was executed as planned.

Many went on the record in the forum right after the test - before getting wound up by anyone.  Mastering engineers went on the record regarding the bottom end.  Of course some hedging has taken place after some phone calls, but it is expected.

Some can argue, who by the way HAVE NO DOG IN THIS RACE, that the test backfired on some who had an agenda.

I know I have never come out in support of Pro Tools, RADAR, analog or anything other than I have worked in all formats and have no axe to grind with any of them.  I can deal with any.

I have always respected Mixerman's privacy and conversations we have had over the years.  We even worked on a small project together.  I have no issues with him outside of his recent bullying and accusations based on his panic.  You will notice that all I have called him on is his attitude with me.  

The test was honest and well done.

The arguments on the 24/96 (like it drops bottom end like 30 IPS?) or Lavry or Nuendo are hedging bigger anyone could imagine.

The files speak for themselves.

The shitstorm speaks for itself.

On one hand some assert that by being there they heard "the problem" plain as day.  Well then by not hearing the huge loss in the Lavry/Nuendo combo right away, how can one trust their ears on one part of the test but not on the other?

They can't have it both ways.  You ether hear it or you don't.  It's not selective.

It's like hearing 2 mixes by the same engineer in the same studio.  One is great, one is crap.  Same band, same set of recordings.  Is the mixer good? bad?  Lucky?  Do we take the great mix or the bad mix as the benchmark?

Are we to believe that some at the test could hear the difference between Pro Tools and 2" but could not hear the difference between Lavry and 2"?

Are we to believe that Fletcher could hear night and day differences in the Lavry files at the test but those differences have since gone away on the very same files?

No matter how it's analized, unless someone get's personal it is all out in the open.  A clear record that has since morphed as 11 days have passed.

It's so clear that some have to resort to giant smoke screens and new tests before they ever listened to this one.

You can see the troops being rallied.  Everyone is getting phone calls.  It's all twisted up now.

But the facts are the facts.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 30, 2005, 06:40:06 PM
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 11:34

Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 12:20

Why didn't they switch between console and Nuendo playback and immediately stop during the transfer and say "Woah!  This doesn't sound the same!" -- even during the RADAR transfer.  


Because that was NOT part of the stated methodology that was agreed upon in the thread that outlined the methodology of the test.


The methodology was based on the belief that the Lavry/SSL/Nuendo combo would be a good archival system -- if you were doing the transfers into the Lavry/SSL/Nuendo combo and immediately heard an issue on the Nuendo playback/monitor.. it meant there was a flaw with the archival system and as pros you should have heard it immediately and stopped the test to figure out an alternative.  If you switched to the Nuendo while transferring from analog and heard a change in sound and kept going... then I honestly don't know what to say... WOW!  Shocked

Are you honestly telling me no-one switched between the analog and Nuendo playback while doing the straight analog transfer?  I find that impossible to believe.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 06:44:44 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 15:40

Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 11:34

Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 12:20

Why didn't they switch between console and Nuendo playback and immediately stop during the transfer and say "Woah!  This doesn't sound the same!" -- even during the RADAR transfer.  


Because that was NOT part of the stated methodology that was agreed upon in the thread that outlined the methodology of the test.


The methodology was based on the belief that the Lavry/SSL/Nuendo combo would be a good archival system -- if you were doing the transfers into the Lavry/SSL/Nuendo combo and immediately heard an issue on the Nuendo playback/monitor.. it meant there was a flaw with the archival system and as pros you should have heard it immediately and stopped the test to figure out an alternative.  If you switched to the Nuendo while transferring from analog and heard a change in sound and kept going... then I honestly don't know what to say... WOW!  Shocked

Are you honestly telling me no-one switched between the analog and Nuendo playback while doing the straight analog transfer?  I find that impossible to believe.

Rail



Right-  People fly in at moderate expense. Albini drives in with headstack and 2". Studio gives a night for this.  Gannon flies in.

All the prep, all the work and these pros never thought to check the mixes?  Yet they listened to them over and over again in the ABX tests.  Hard to fathom.

Part of the reason for this test WAS TO MAKE THE FILES.  The files were the document.  

How could not one person hear that the Lavry screwed the pooch if in fact it did?

If in fact they couldn't hear it........

Blame the messenger (the files)
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on November 30, 2005, 07:02:41 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 18:44

[
How could not one person hear that the Lavry screwed the pooch if in fact it did?




It didn't.  

And no, that's actually me in the Led Zeppelin picture. (stupid Lavry camera)

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Eric Rudd on November 30, 2005, 07:07:17 PM
RKrizman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 18:02



And no, that's actually me in the Led Zeppelin picture. (stupid Lavry camera)

-R


That's me towards the bottom of the picture.

Oh, wait, there isn't any bottom of the picture.

Eric
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 30, 2005, 07:11:10 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 18:06

"No beer."

I'm really getting tired of  hearing about the beer.

.
.
.

It's a poor excuse and cop-out at the very least, and an insulting accusation that the Chicago boys were all fucked up.


You're right, Ron, and I apologize for the dig.  I didn't mean to imply that those in attendance were either drunk or even compromised by the alcohol.  I was trying to be funny . . . no, "wry" . . . and I failed to succed.  My bad.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 30, 2005, 07:14:40 PM
Mixerman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 15:35

45 posts went up since I asked someone to explain why Slipperman is describing precisely the same problem, occurring from precisely the same process--yet only two people have addressed it. Jules; suggesting that Slipperman doesn't use Digi products, which is wrong. And Rail; suggesting that his friendship with me would cause him to lie.

The rest of you have completely ignored the question. I'll repeat the premise along with the actual question, for those of you that have missed it.


Would you then agree that 43 posts have since gone up in which you have failed to address myriad questions about your dismissal of the "Chicago Test"?  I'd say you have a LOT more to answer for than anyone else, but you keep dodging the issue.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on November 30, 2005, 07:42:36 PM
Yes, Albini has class.  Even though I'm equally unhappy that he didn't address the core issue with Fletcher at the test, his post-test responses to our questions have been non-defensive, level-headed and always non-beligerent.  And I do appreciate that.  

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 08:05:18 PM
Quote:

 I'd say you have a LOT more to answer for than anyone else, but you keep dodging the issue.


MM lives for this shit, but his lack of posts only show that he is in search of a way out.

The few post he has here are at best reaching, at worst desperate.

I loved the whole,

"are you in, or out"....

"Rail I new you didn't have balls"

"Rail, you do have balls".."are you in, or out"....

"who's in"

This has obviously turned into a "he said, she said"  affair.

Randy put it best:

Quote:


The shitstorm speaks for itself.
Title: "Shake spears" crash and burn - bring your own 'marsh'mallows
Post by: Jules on November 30, 2005, 09:10:00 PM
Slipperman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 16:41

Jules wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 10:59

Last time I checked, DAW wise, Slipperman's facility runs predominantly Logic Audio rigs with MOTU 192 interfaces and keeps a basic PT rig only for opening PT files of sessions done elsewhere.

Anyone got a light?


Not the case as of almost 2 years ago Jules!

JP, EF and AV are avowed PT guys. Each with his own rig as those guys bounce between here and their own shops. And I took the plunge with "Mobile Satan's Brother"(Mobile Satan was the old Mix+ rig we still have and use) in December of 2004 to make things easier for hi-bit rate stuff from other shops... and more compatible with the new building wide 'No imbedded gear' EDAC thing we've adopted.

I've also got 2 little Mbox rigs for 'healing' purposes in the edit rooms.

The age of "BD" as a routine client production expectation has been upon us for 2 years now. And when yer banging 60+ released projects a year.... You've basically got no choice in the matter.

You are correct in noting that I do have 500+ channels of MOTU 192 conversion in the building as well.


I find them hilariously similar sounding to the PT AD's out of the box... and some guys around here like them better than the PT stuff when clocked externally. In the end I don't think any of this shit is the difference between gold and platinum.

Just wanna clear this up before ANOTHER shitstorm blows.

Best regards to ya, hope all is going swimmingly.

SM.



Hi Slipperman and thanks for the update!

So, at your multi studio facility you have:

500 x channels of MOTU 192 conversion (that are favored by your in house staff when externally clocked)
2 x 2 PT MBox rigs
3 x producers that are in and out with their own PTHD rigs
1 x PTHD rig permanently in-house

Earlier in this thread Mixerman was making out that your were in some sort of day-in-day-out 2" Pro Tools / HD 192 interface "transfer brotherhood" with him.

I suspect this to be not the case.

I can see you having PT rigs in the control room to keep A&R happy. I can see you doing all your transfers with your externally clocked MOTU rigs. I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles - oh yeah....


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 01, 2005, 12:53:54 AM
Fig wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 18:19

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 10:17

Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 09:54

Yeah and the easter bunny is real because some one said so?



The world was flat for a long time...


Using my metaphor for this ridiculousness, Brad, I must comment:

In those days of a flat Earth, when sailors didn't come back from a voyage, the assumption was that they fell off the edge of the Earth (it being flat in those days Rolling Eyes ).

Just because the Chicago test did not reveal the anomaly does not PROVE that MM's anomaly doesn't exist -- any more than sailors not returning proved the earth had an edge.

Many a voyage had to take place before the paths could be found to PROVE the world was round.  Then those paths were mapped so people could learn from them.  I suggest similar rigor in this debate.

BTW, just because MM can show the anomaly won't PROVE there is a problem with Alsihad, either.

Personally, and like you I think, Brad, I am more interested in WHAT CONDITIONS cause the anomaly.  The ONLY way I can think of finding those causes is to find a situation where the anomaly actually occurs - which is why I look forward to MM's test (which is really more of "another day at the office" than the type of testing that took place here in the Windy City).

For those that are not experiencing the anomaly, good for you - consider yourself master seamen and your ships impervious to the areas where beyond "there be dragons".

But for the respected and capable folks that are frustrated by this phantom that seems to come and go - let's find the truth in this.  Construct a situation where it DOES occur, and THEN get out the scopes and APs to find the culprits.

Its gotta be better than pointing fingers and resorting to childish behaviors that I am actually embarrassed to read, dontcha think?  Jeez!

Osci-later,

Fig




It's amazing how to see how many pages have been posted in this thread and how most of the participants keep on ignoring the more contributive and inteligent posts.

Too busy they are slandering Mixerman. You know who you are ...

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 01, 2005, 01:01:23 AM
Chris Lambrechts wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 23:11


I sometimes wonder for whom I should have more respect ... you or your maid (the one that can actually HEAR the difference)




I wonder how long a post were I would make such statement about Jules would stand in your forum Chris.

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on December 01, 2005, 01:09:35 AM
malice wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 00:53


It's amazing how to see how many pages have been posted in this thread and how most of the participants keep on ignoring the more contributive and inteligent posts.

Too busy they are slandering Mixerman. You know who you are ...

malice


And your contribution is.....what?

-R
Title: Re: "Shake spears" crash and burn - bring your own 'marsh'mallows
Post by: malice on December 01, 2005, 01:17:38 AM
Jules wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 03:10


I can see you having PT rigs in the control room to keep A&R happy. I can see you doing all your transfers with your externally clocked MOTU rigs. I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles - oh yeah....



Don't look to high, your ceilling will ruin the view.

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 01, 2005, 01:18:59 AM
RKrizman wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 07:09


And your contribution is.....what?

-R



You quoted it

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 01, 2005, 03:13:13 AM
I know you are, but what am I?


M
Title: Re: "Shake spears" crash and burn - bring your own 'marsh'mallows
Post by: Slipperman on December 01, 2005, 03:37:52 AM
Jules wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 21:10


Earlier in this thread Mixerman was making out that your were in some sort of day-in-day-out 2" Pro Tools / HD 192 interface "transfer brotherhood" with him.

I suspect this to be not the case.

I can see you having PT rigs in the control room to keep A&R happy. I can see you doing all your transfers with your externally clocked MOTU rigs. I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles - oh yeah....



We do whatever we gotta Jules.

Most transfers happen in the dedicated rig if time and availability permits. And that rig is a MOTU 192/Apogee BB or AardSync clocked and direct-wired to my best 2".

On the other hand... I'm working on framing the mix on a record right now with Joe P. that is a PTHD transfer.

He is NOT a Logic guy if he can avoid it, and this one was a BD bloodbath from day one anyhow. Which means we have to lock to the SyncIO, fly the drums, hit the BD, return a submix to the 2" and finish our basic tracking. Then fly the additional tracks from the 24x in lock before we hit the mix, as those guys strip silence and AT and SR and whatnot. All the usual tom-foolery. It really does just depend on whose behind the wheel as far as production and how things are going with staying on schedule.

Personally... I'm quite a bit more focused on getting the records done and keeping logjams out of the system than what the software platform or hardware are.

Always have been. Suspect I always will be.

But please.... Let the flames continue. I really get a kick out of seeing the wild saber rattling, chest beating and territorial pissing matches. If I'm having a shit day, I'm certainly not above jumping in and throwing a few random broadsides myself...

HEY!! It's the fucking INTERNOT!!!!

HOHOHO.

In the end... I think it's great that there is still a whole lotta passion in the craft.

Could be a lot worse.

Nobody could give a shit.

XOXOXOX

Slippy
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 01, 2005, 04:46:09 AM
DivideByZero wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 09:13

I know you are, but what am I?


M


I still don't know, but I'm beginning to like you ...

You said this :

DivideByZero wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 20:45

Just because the files don't show the stated loss, doesn't mean I don't believe the people who have reported it.

I have said this before.

The only thing I don't have here, is the same rig, and room, I wouldn't think that'd make a difference.. Rolling Eyes  Analysis of the files reveals no problem.

Bob O said he has experienced this problem. I trust Bob's ears. I think he's *not insane*.. but still, the problem doesn't seem to leave the room.

I'd kinda like to see people just try to forget about it all, and move-on.org.com.gov.biz.

(I also wish I had vacation property on the Moon)


M



It's an interesting post too ...


More interesting than the pissing matches that draged this thread from Fletcher's to the Saloon.


whatever

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 01, 2005, 08:30:16 AM
I don't think the test proved M(&)M's point, but nobody has died (yet) and arguing is fun.

Here's a test I like though M&M's Test

Melts in you mouth, across all frequencies.

M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Your Ad Here! on December 01, 2005, 10:38:09 AM
MM

Here's why slipperman is siteing the same problem...

There's about a dozen reasons one could think of off the top of the head why such a glaring deficiency could be occuring. These include calibration/connectivity problems, user error, system optimization/tweaks, broken equipment, or as you suggest, poorly designed DAWs.

Frankly, I don't think such a pronounced degradation lies in the DAW (PTs HD in this case). I believe it much more likely to be other factors or conditions that generate a less-than-optimum transfer.

It's sort of like when you said PTs clicks and pops and I explained to you that your assertion was bogus by providing clear rational about how many producers/AEs didn't understand how to use PTs properly regarding crossfades and transfering sessions to different systems. Remember that thread?

You made defamatory claims about PTs clicks and pops and were wrong then...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 01, 2005, 11:30:09 AM
MM WRONG?

No way.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: dnafe on December 01, 2005, 12:01:28 PM
Dumb Q here

Why is everone so quick to jump down MM's throat yet no one has questioned whether the Lavry converters or Nuendo did anything to the audio.

Don
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on December 01, 2005, 12:22:15 PM
dnafe wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 09:01

Dumb Q here

Why is everone so quick to jump down MM's throat yet no one has questioned whether the Lavry converters or Nuendo did anything to the audio.

Don


Uh -- Did you read my last post (message #110145)?  I've also asked to hear the RADAR and Pro Tools files which don't have any Lavry/SSL/Nuendo.

MM said your maid can hear this by using an HHB CDR as an archival system.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 01, 2005, 12:24:13 PM
"Why is everone so quick to jump down MM's throat yet no one has questioned whether the Lavry converters or Nuendo did anything to the audio."


Don, it was MM who stated the test was flawed before he even listened to the files, and then said he would redo the test.

He came to this conclusion based on what some said they heard "in the room".

If these files don't represent a reasonable approximation of what was heard "in the room", That would suggest his low-end problem is a digital
problem not specific to Protools, but all daws and converters.

I don't doubt what anyone says they hear or don't hear, but to suggest that the Nuendo/Lavry combo is the reason MM's claim didn't show up
is reaching.

Fletcher hand picked the lavry converters for the test, and nuendo is highly regarded by many heavy hitters, so i don't see where that logic comes into play. the only other choice would have been an HHB CDR or a 2trk deck.

Which one of those 3 would have you choose to store the files?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: ajcamlet on December 01, 2005, 12:28:59 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 18:06

"No beer."

I'm really getting tired of  hearing about the beer.

I bought 2 cases. at the end of the night there was at least a 12 pack left. A case and a half is not enough to fuck up 20 or  more people to the point where they won't hear well or focus. Also, when SA asked the question, it was early in the evening, so not much beer had been consumed at that point.

It's a poor excuse and cop-out at the very least, and an insulting accusation that the Chicago boys were all fucked up.



Well i would say its insulting that it only took a case and ahalf to screw up the group.  if that indeed happend.  And- two cases is not nearly enough for 20 people.  What kind of test was this??
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fibes on December 01, 2005, 12:32:02 PM
I just looked at the calendar and realized I've finished 3 EPs, tracked basics for a ten song album, designed my new room retrofit and polished off a bottle of Vodka since this thing launched.

How I managed all that while keeping up with the test is a definate endorsement of the positive effects of LSD 25 cut with bathtub crank.

Hold on my Adam ribbon tweeters are asking for a ride to the fairgrounds and the little gnome under my console is refusing to give them a ride.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 12:39:32 PM
dnafe wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 09:01

Dumb Q here

Why is everone so quick to jump down MM's throat yet no one has questioned whether the Lavry converters or Nuendo did anything to the audio.

Don


I have.  People may have thought I was being sarcastic but I do believe this should be looked at.

If this test shows PT drops bottom or Lavry/Nuendo had an issue or RADAR should be in the converter business as well, all I have been asking is to keep focus on what really happened.

These are the results EVEN if those results are a file stage problem.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: dnafe on December 01, 2005, 01:35:35 PM
Well I can categorically state that in my very limited AE experience I wouldn't hold Nuendo up to a "sonic" standard higher than PT.

DOn
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 01, 2005, 01:45:58 PM
http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=48200


Then tell that to Chuck Ainlay.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 01:47:15 PM
dnafe wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 10:35

Well I can categorically state that in my very limited AE experience I wouldn't hold Nuendo up to a "sonic" standard higher than PT.

DOn


Nuendo just in and out with no level changes?  I have No experience with Nuendo but some swear by it.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 01, 2005, 01:52:41 PM
dnafe wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 19:35

Well I can categorically state that in my very limited AE experience I wouldn't hold Nuendo up to a "sonic" standard higher than PT.

DOn


Cool, let's make a test in some windy North american town and make 3 or 4 threads  about 60 pages long  (with half of the posts about your maid hearing better than you).


malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on December 01, 2005, 02:15:39 PM
I don't know why nobody has stressed this yet, but the problem I have with this whole thing is that I have not read a series of consistent statements from a wide range of people claiming  a "loss of 6db at 50Hz".

It has been described a number of different ways and is commonly referred to as the "bass problem", but there seems to be a lack of consensus on specifics.

Earlier in this thread I proposed that the problem might be something other than a "measurable" loss of low end, and instead may be related to converter accuracy and their ability to capture subtle room reflections.

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/8160/10973 5/11771/?SQ=ceaad117ffdd84c0e093c4b89af0a9c1

The reason I started thinking this is due to the following statements:

Slipperman wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 11:33

I have been describing it in my VERY OCCASIONAL internet posts on the subject as" "A sense of Loss of power and dimension", "2d",...

SM.  


No mention of a loss of 6db at 50Hz, but a description of a problem caused by poor conversion accuracy. The "loss of power and dimension" or "2d" effect points to a converters inability to capture the room reflections that many of us react to almost subconsciously.

electrical wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 09:33


The next playback was one configuration of the ProTools system. I sensed the low-end difference immediately. It was as though someone had listened to my thoughts about the confusing/muddy low-end of the previous listen and "done some work" to try to "clean it up." This is important: I could easily imagine some people preferring it this way. There were other differences as well, but nothing I was unfamiliar with in my other experiences with digital transfers. The high-end was slightly "harder" sounding, and the upper-mid-range sounded slightly garbled. I really hate using terms like that, because the impressions are so difficult to describe, but that's where I have to leave it. The difference would be comparable to the differences between different consoles, and it would be easy to see how different folks would have different preferences among them.



The source material for this test made it difficult to hear what was going on due to the rapid "barrage" of drums, bass and guitars and the low end was fairly muddy. I think that the conversion to digital actually helped "clean up" this file due to what it "left out", rather than what it captured. Also the edgier quality of digital probably helped to create better "separation" of the individual elements compared to the smoother analog original. If the statement had been "it sounded like someone applied a hi-pass filter to clean up the low end", it would further support the bass loss claim, but that was not said.

I have a feeling that for some people, it is a "digital" problem, but that some converters are more accurate than others. In another previous post I suggested that the greatest amount of degradation during analog to digital conversion is during the initial conversion, and that subsequent conversions suffer less. This would explain why there was a greater difference during the inital transfer when comparing the "live" analog and first generation digital files, and then "less of a difference" after the conversion of all three sources through the Lavry/Nuendo combo.

This statement would seem to support that conclusion:

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:33


The "stored" mixes played back from Nuendo after everything was "printed" showed much less difference between storage media than the initial playbacks did. Even distinctions beteween different digital systems and clocking methods which were apparent to everyone in the room seemed to be much harder to discern from the "printed" versions. I realize this mitigates somewhat anyone's concern for "the low-end problem," but I still feel it is an unfortunate reality.



My theory that converter accuracy is the real issue here is further supported by this statement:

Fletcher wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 11:03

The test I noticed that was like night and day in the "A/B/X" thing was "test 9".  This was one where you'd have to be deafer than a fence post to not have immediately identified the two signals being radically different.  When I asked Azulas what they were when the whole thing had come to an end... guess what he said... "PT-48 and RADAR 48".  Night and fucking day.


Again, no mention of a "bass loss", just that the two digital files were "radically different".

When I listened to the 3 files, they were very close, but as stated in my original post, #11 stood out consistently as being the lowest quality.

The analog file was obvious to me as the "landmarks" I listen to were the sense of realism or "space" around the drums and the impression that "air" was being moved around inside a room. This would have been a lot easier with a straight ahead 120bpm drum pattern and a tight bass track, but I still was able to hear it clearly. This is also why I think MM suggested that type of material for the test.

The 2 digital files could have been a toss up, but as the problem being discussed was regarding Pro Tools inability to capture the  analog mix faithfully, it wasn't a stretch to assume that the lower quality digital file was Pro Tools and the more accurate version was Radar.

If this "bass problem" in Pro Tools is real, then it has to be measured before anyone can do anything about it. It would be impossible for a 6db drop at 50Hz to occur without being able to measure it, wherever it may occur in the signal chain from the original source through to your ears.

I'm not saying that "something" doesn't exist to leave people with the impression that there is some sort of problem, but the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that it has to do with converter accuracy and the issue of analog to digital conversion as a whole. The Pro Tools converters are not as accurate as the Radar converters. And when I say not as accurate, I'm not talking about frequency response.

The only way to pin this down if it is a "real" problem, is to accurately "measure" it, and be able to consistently recreate the error. That is the only way to reasonably expect a manufacturer to react to the claim of a problem.

I don't disbelieve anything anyone heard, I just think there needs to be a consensus on what it really is, and backed up with irrefutable scientific proof of its existence...not personal accounts of what people "thought" they heard.

If nothing else, I think this test proves that we don't always hear the same thing the same way.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on December 01, 2005, 02:30:18 PM
blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 11:15



When I listened to the 3 files, they were very close


Nice post but you've completely missed the point...

Mixerman made a very specific claim (as I've posted before) -- his claim was that an analog transfer to RADAR did not suffer the low end issue.. while an analog transfer to Pro Tools HD did.  He said that he could do the transfers and record them to CDR and then compare playback of the CDR and his maid could hear the "problem".  Pretty cut and dry.  He's claim is specific and implies that (in his own words) it's "egregious".

So either the files were close or one had an "egregious" loss of low end which your maid should hear -- or the claim is mistaken.

This has nothing to do with subtle differences.  This wasn't a converter shootout -- it was to either prove or disprove Mixerman's claim of a "problem".

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 02:34:18 PM
Don't forget one big theory that was floating around before this "test".  This tape was a great subject for that specific "charge".

The power supply on the 192 crapping out when hit with a lot of info.

This tape had a ton of energy as the guitars and bass were tuned down, the drums were all over the kick(s) and toms...

It was testing the power supply.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: dnafe on December 01, 2005, 02:51:24 PM
malice wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 13:52

dnafe wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 19:35

Well I can categorically state that in my very limited AE experience I wouldn't hold Nuendo up to a "sonic" standard higher than PT.

DOn


Cool, let's make a test in some windy North american town and make 3 or 4 threads  about 60 pages long  (with half of the posts about your maid hearing better than you).


malice


Keep my maid out of this...she's terribly shy and certainly wouldn't express her opinion in public.

Don
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on December 01, 2005, 03:06:01 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 11:30

blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 11:15



When I listened to the 3 files, they were very close


Nice post but you've completely missed the point...

Mixerman made a very specific claim (as I've posted before) -- his claim was that an analog transfer to RADAR did not suffer the low end issue.. while an analog transfer to Pro Tools HD did.  He said that he could do the transfers and record them to CDR and then compare playback of the CDR and his maid could hear the "problem".  Pretty cut and dry.  He's claim is specific and implies that (in his own words) it's "egregious".

So either the files were close or one had an "egregious" loss of low end which your maid should hear -- or the claim is mistaken.

This has nothing to do with subtle differences.

Rail




My point is that MM is the only one to make that "probably overzealous" claim using a number of ways to describe it, and that no one else is able to agree with a single concise definition of the same "problem".

I have stated that there is no bass loss to my ears on the files we received. I think if there was a real "measurable" bass loss as originally claimed, that it still could be heard on the files we received using the source material that was used.

I'm simply trying to come up with a potential explanation for why there is no general consensus on what the problem actually is, why people are describing it differently, and why people reacted to the different stages of the test methodology in the way that they did.

I don't know Mixerman, I haven't read the whole history of the infamous bass problem, and I have no axe to grind with any particular format or manufacturer. I just think that the bandwidth on the forum could be better used by trying to come up with a potential answer to why some people hear a problem and some people don't.

Any further testing that is done is just wasting time unless the end result is captured and the problem, if it exists, is "measured".

If the whole point of this test was simply to disprove a respected audio engineer's claims, then for all intents and purposes you've done that.  Maybe MM's past behavior or attitude justifies the viciousness of the responses here. I don't know, and frankly don't care. but if everybody was really concerned about discovering and solving a potential problem, there are probably better ways to discuss it than what has been done on the last 37 pages of this thread.

Until I see some scientific proof of its existence, I'm a nonbeliever. But I don't discount the possibility that people are "hearing different things", and that is what has led to all this confusion over what should really be a simple issue.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 03:18:17 PM
Another "test" is simple.

Go into the studio Rail suggested he could get (Neve/Studer room) set it up, transfer ONE format - 2" to PT at 48K or whatever.  Bass and drums only as Mixerman does.

For now, forget the RADAR it is NOT in question.  If it's good, why test it?

Boom, done.

Question for RADAR people.

Have you tracked to RADAR and then transferred to PT via digital (madi, whatever) and compared?

I have done this once, but didn't compare on the spot both analog outputs as we were listening digitally.

Plus all the internal RADAR slaves had never been played back with the "master" at the same time before - had to get that all set.  There was enough of a cluster going on.

There was way too much other stuff to make sure was working.

Then the project moved to an unfamiliar room so there was no real reference.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on December 01, 2005, 03:23:00 PM
Yes  - I've transferred tracks from RADAR to Pro Tools and back via digital with no loss.  No one's stating that the RADAR doesn't have excellent converters.  

This test has proven that you shouldn't believe everything you hear on the internet... and some folks have an agenda.  Mine is simply to expose the truth in this case.

It's very easy to make wild claims and accusations while hiding behind a nom de plume -- If you encounter an issue you should make 200% sure it's a real issue before making those claims and calling everyone deaf or an idiot for not hearing the so called problem.  If you're going to call someone or a company out -- have the balls to do it using your real name.

It's unfair to attack a person or company to attempt to elevate your online persona - especially when those attacks are unfounded.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 01, 2005, 03:32:45 PM
blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 15:06

Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 11:30

blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 11:15



When I listened to the 3 files, they were very close


Nice post but you've completely missed the point...

Mixerman made a very specific claim (as I've posted before) -- his claim was that an analog transfer to RADAR did not suffer the low end issue.. while an analog transfer to Pro Tools HD did.  He said that he could do the transfers and record them to CDR and then compare playback of the CDR and his maid could hear the "problem".  Pretty cut and dry.  He's claim is specific and implies that (in his own words) it's "egregious".

So either the files were close or one had an "egregious" loss of low end which your maid should hear -- or the claim is mistaken.

This has nothing to do with subtle differences.

Rail




My point is that MM is the only one to make that "probably overzealous" claim using a number of ways to describe it, and that no one else is able to agree with a single concise definition of the same "problem".

I have stated that there is no bass loss to my ears on the files we received. I think if there was a real "measurable" bass loss as originally claimed, that it still could be heard on the files we received using the source material that was used.

I'm simply trying to come up with a potential explanation for why there is no general consensus on what the problem actually is, why people are describing it differently, and why people reacted to the different stages of the test methodology in the way that they did.

I don't know Mixerman, I haven't read the whole history of the infamous bass problem, and I have no axe to grind with any particular format or manufacturer. I just think that the bandwidth on the forum could be better used by trying to come up with a potential answer to why some people hear a problem and some people don't.

Any further testing that is done is just wasting time unless the end result is captured and the problem, if it exists, is "measured".

If the whole point of this test was simply to disprove a respected audio engineer's claims, then for all intents and purposes you've done that.  Maybe MM's past behavior or attitude justifies the viciousness of the responses here. I don't know, and frankly don't care. but if everybody was really concerned about discovering and solving a potential problem, there are probably better ways to discuss it than what has been done on the last 37 pages of this thread.

Until I see some scientific proof of its existence, I'm a nonbeliever. But I don't discount the possibility that people are "hearing different things", and that is what has lead to all this confusion over what should really be a simple issue.

JL



Maybe the problem is a little too much ego driving people to hear what they want to hear. Were there differences in the files? Yes, but I believe you could have played the 2" tape back on a different deck and heard differences as subtle as what was on those audio clips.

The test was to prove whether or not there was a material loss of low end. There wasn't. Not only do my ears say so, the spectral analyser did too.  If its in the room but not on the clips, clearly the cause was not between the 2" and the recorders since the lowend seemed to have found its way onto the clips.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 03:35:00 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 12:23

Yes  - I've transferred tracks from RADAR to Pro Tools and back via digital with no loss.  No one's stating that the RADAR doesn't have excellent converters.

Rail


My point was for the folks who own radar and have to use PT but have experienced this "problem".  Transfer the 2" to RADAR, transfer the RADAR files to PT via digital and then they will only be playing back through the 192. At one point when they mix, someone can choose whatever converter they want.

There is always a work around to a "problem".

For that matter if they already own the RADAR, play back through the RADAR converters as well. At least bass and drums, if that is their issue.

In the interest of doing the best one feels they can do anyway.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on December 01, 2005, 06:05:19 PM
blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 12:06

I'm simply trying to come up with a potential explanation for why there is no general consensus on what the problem actually is, why people are describing it differently, and why people reacted to the different stages of the test methodology in the way that they did.


I believe I answered that in message 108933:

Quote:

Bottom line, the RADAR and Pro Tools converters sound different -- neither loses "balls" or bottom end. Choose whichever you prefer (as with anything in life). This was never a test to say I prefer the sound of one over the other -- it was a test to determine if one was broken.. which has resoundingly been disproved.

Some engineers like API's, others prefer Neve... and others may even like SSL. Use what you prefer and make music.


There is no "problem" -- except user error or maintenance issues if there is an "egregious" sonic difference while doing a transfer.  A professional would identify the problem and fix it and continue (unless they're unqualified to)...  those with a bias would throw up their hands and blame the gear they have a bias against.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on December 01, 2005, 07:28:43 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 15:05

blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 12:06

I'm simply trying to come up with a potential explanation for why there is no general consensus on what the problem actually is, why people are describing it differently, and why people reacted to the different stages of the test methodology in the way that they did.


I believe I answered that in message 108933:

Quote:

Bottom line, the RADAR and Pro Tools converters sound different -- neither loses "balls" or bottom end. Choose whichever you prefer (as with anything in life). This was never a test to say I prefer the sound of one over the other -- it was a test to determine if one was broken.. which has resoundingly been disproved.

Some engineers like API's, others prefer Neve... and others may even like SSL. Use what you prefer and make music.


There is no "problem" -- except user error or maintenance issues if there is an "egregious" sonic difference while doing a transfer.  A professional would identify the problem and fix it and continue (unless they're unqualified to)...  those with a bias would throw up their hands and blame the gear they have a bias against.

Rail




I totally agree. I was just trying to get a little more specific as to what it was that might be creating the "perception" of better low end on the Radar (or conversely lack of low end on Pro Tools).

If it is actually due to lower quality (less accurate) converters in the HD192, then some may consider that a "problem" as opposed to a different "flavour".

There is nothing more amazing sounding to me than a good set of drums recorded in a great room. I can see that someone who comes from an analog background and that records a lot of Rock drums to tape might be absolutely offended by what happens to the sound with a (in their opinion) less than capable converter. All the "excitement" of the original track can get sucked out pretty easily if you can't "feel" the room anymore.

For other types of music, or for different engineers, the same converters might not be a problem at all. In fact, as some noted, it may actually clean things up, or even sound better on different material.

Some people can get very passionate about what they do, and maybe that's what leads to these types of "discussions".

Ultimately though...passion is a good thing....and so are "choices" when it comes to picking your converters.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 07:35:25 PM
What then if the RADAR added a bit of bottom end?

Is added bottom end always good?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on December 01, 2005, 07:49:20 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 16:35

What then if the RADAR added a bit of bottom end?

Is added bottom end always good?


I don't think the Radar adds anything.

I just think it may capture more accurately the "room reflections" that produce the impression of the bigger fatter and more exciting sound that existed on the tape.

If the Pro Tools converters aren't accurate enough to faithfully reproduce those subtle room reflections, the "magic" is lost, and some "may" perceive this as a lack of low end.

I have no idea if this is what people are hearing and are interpreting this way. I just know that the Pro Tools file does not represent the analog file as accurately as the Radar does.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 01, 2005, 07:52:26 PM
Nope! Not always!

Anything that helps transparency, in the non-product part of work flow, PLEASE!

Adding a component to a chain, and leaving it bypassed can work, some things add. I wouldn't like to have to predict today, a 3db boost in a transfer, that is 2 weeks from now

With that program, the digital dumps have a filtered sound, across the range, a new curve. I am sure it has something to do with a topic I have no business discussing, namely the samples zipping by, and the correction.

I am *not* a numbers guy, but that has always been my take on that thing that makes my eyes twitch.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 08:34:11 PM
blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 16:49

R.Nicklaus wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 16:35

What then if the RADAR added a bit of bottom end?

Is added bottom end always good?


I don't think the Radar adds anything.

I just think it may capture more accurately the "room reflections" that produce the impression of the bigger fatter and more exciting sound that existed on the tape.

If the Pro Tools converters aren't accurate enough to faithfully reproduce those subtle room reflections, the "magic" is lost, and some "may" perceive this as a lack of low end.

I have no idea if this is what people are hearing and are interpreting this way. I just know that the Pro Tools file does not represent the analog file as accurately as the Radar does.

JL




I'm not sure I agree with you 100%, but what is so far, being compared, is a 2" tape being transferred.  No .5 db fader up on the kick once the transfer is complete, no tweak on the overhead levels, you know, things you would do if working on a project.

The console is up, the Studer looses a power supply and the spare Otari is brought in and played back through the exact same static mix.

If anyone would expect the mix to exactly hang together, they would be shocked.  If the Otari had a rise at 4K but was down at 11K, a bump at 90 but light at 60 and the Studer had a rise at 14K and a bump at 50, would you hear this as room resolution?  If the best alignment on the Otari had some .5 DB differences, could you re balance and be pretty happy with the sound?

Many here have experienced a 2" tape being transferred from a Studer A800 to an Otari MTR90 and have different low end and top end, depending on tape stock, etc.

However, take the transfer out of the picture and record your drums through the 192, RADAR or various analog machines and what do you have?

If you listen through the conversion on the 192 and move the mics to where it sounds "right" and it plays back the same signal, did the tree fall and nobody hear it??

This was a very unusual test.  Take these 3 multi track formats and play them back in a static mix.  Interesting though.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 01, 2005, 08:42:14 PM
Yeppers on the 2" change. It's usually more than the difference between any two of the test files, even on identical brand/model machines, just as much.

If you have an A machine go down, and you have to swap for B, when A is back up, you find yourself going back to A.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on December 01, 2005, 08:52:18 PM
As with most things in life, there are always so many variables that you just do the best you can with what you've got.

If I had recorded the analog track though, I might have a closer "emotional investment" in seeing them survive a transfer. In the end, you just pick the lesser of all evils and go with it.

Are any of these converters "bad" or incapable of making a great recording. Obviously not. In Radar's case, if you're competing in a market dominated by Pro Tools, I guess you better offer something a little "extra".

As seen by the variety of responses to the 3 file test where many preferred the sound of Pro Tools..."to each his own" might be an apt statement in this case.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 09:01:11 PM
blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 17:52

As with most things in life, there are always so many variables that you just do the best you can with what you've got.

If I had recorded the analog track though, I might have a closer "emotional investment" in seeing them survive a transfer. In the end, you just pick the lesser of all evils and go with it.

Are any of these converters "bad" or incapable of making a great recording. Obviously not. In Radar's case, if you're competing in a market dominated by Pro Tools, I guess you better offer something a little "extra".

As seen by the variety of responses to the 3 file test where many preferred the sound of Pro Tools..."to each his own" might be an apt statement in this case.

JL


I agree about the transfer being survivable.  But what if Steve Albini spent 10 minutes on each re balancing each format?  That would be a real world test.  Could they have stayed the same?

The RADAR and Pro Tools are such different animals, they don't compete.

RADAR - 24 "voices" and 24 channels of I/O in the unit.  Needs a console.

Pro Tools - I think it will do 192 voices (128 at least) has a full digital console but only 8 analog and 8 Digital I/O per 192.


They are not the same kind of machine.  RADAR replaces a 24 track machine and more.

Pro Tools is a DAW.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on December 01, 2005, 09:09:05 PM
You know what I mean. Obviously there are applications for both that overlap.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 01, 2005, 09:15:46 PM
blueboy wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 18:09

You know what I mean. Obviously there are applications for both that overlap.

JL


I agree 100%.  But if "everyone" started "hating" pro tools, like the 3348 just fell out of favor one day, the RADAR isn't going to be where they migrate.

It would be Nuendo, DP, all of the other DAW's.  One we haven't seen yet most likely.

Once people have zillions of tracks, plug in gizmos and "decent" sound they aren't going "back".

Of course, this is only my take on this.

Let me add that the new crop of young engineers coming up in most cases don't care about 2" like the current guys didn't care about 1" 8 track and direct to disc.  Of course this is way general.

People were "fine" making good records on MCI 2" 24 tracks - Not the big dog of analog by any means but workable by all means.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: blueboy on December 01, 2005, 09:35:32 PM
Dedicated hard disc recorders definitely have their place and offer a "comfort zone" for those migrating from tape, but the advantages of DAW's are too great to pass up for anyone that is comfortable with using a computer.

People hated/hate Microsoft because of their dominance in both Operating systems as well as office applications. With the Mac OS moving to Intel architecture, and the availability of free open source office suites like Open Office, Microsoft is being forced to change the way they work to remain comptetitive.

I think that the introduction of Dual Core CPU's (just got mine) to the desktop PC market is going to force Digidesign to make changes to remain competitive as well. Host based processing for DAW's is becoming much more competitive with hardware based solutions and the costs involved in upgrading a host based system are much lower due to the wider use of general purpose CPU's as opposed to proprietary hardware DSP.

Personally, I would like to see an open source standard file format for all DAW's as well so that nothing ever gets "trapped"in a proprietary format if one product falls out of favour.

JL
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 01, 2005, 10:13:26 PM
I wish that were a prophesy.


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rankus on December 01, 2005, 10:32:29 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 18:15





 One we haven't seen yet most likely.




Gawd,, I WANT one!  When is it coming out?  Shocked
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on December 01, 2005, 10:54:45 PM
R.Nicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 00:35

Is added bottom end always good?


Randy,

I typically prefer a bigger bottom end.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: henchman on December 02, 2005, 02:29:11 AM
dnafe wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 10:35

Well I can categorically state that in my very limited AE experience I wouldn't hold Nuendo up to a "sonic" standard higher than PT.

DOn


And it's a good thing too.

Because Nuendo wipes the floor with Pro-Tools on so many different levels.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: danickstr on December 02, 2005, 02:51:27 AM
this thing being in this forum should tell you guys something....time to move on, perhaps? Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on December 02, 2005, 06:56:37 AM
rnicklaus wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 21:01

The RADAR and Pro Tools are such different animals, they don't compete.

RADAR - 24 "voices" and 24 channels of I/O in the unit.  Needs a console.

Pro Tools - I think it will do 192 voices (128 at least) has a full digital console but only 8 analog and 8 Digital I/O per 192.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... except that Digi figured out how to make people buy more boxes.

In my, albeit limited experience... if you can't say what needs to be said in 24 tracks then you're going to have a pretty fucked up sounding record.

My kid [14] turned me onto "Who's Next" a couple of weeks ago... it reminded me what a record can sound like when you focus on a few well placed tracks with great emotional performances.  You can't make up for the lack of emotion in performance with more and more and more tracks no matter how hard we try.

In the case of having to use a console vs. not having to use a console... it seems that you still need to have a "control surface" [virtual console] even if you don't have an actual desk which seems to make the "but you can mix in the computer without a desk" argument kinda weak in my opinion.

Personally, I'm no where near as religious about this format bullshit as many seem to be... I'm kinda from the "Whatever Works" school of making records, but it appears that as the world turns I'm in the minority.

However, in this land of politically correct allowances for minorities, I don't understand this near evanglical intolerance for those who haven't swallowed the Pro-Tools Kool-Aid... I didn't buy that the Sony 3324 and 3348 machines were worth a shit, and I'm not buying the P-T stuff... does that make me a bad person?  Well if it does then so be it.

I am a RADAR user and dealer... but if I hear something better come along I will move to that platform.  To this point I've not heard anything better [though the Euphonix R-1 is pretty fucking good!! ... I just don't have that kind of money].
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on December 02, 2005, 06:57:47 AM
Quote:

I have no idea if this is what people are hearing and are interpreting this way. I just know that the Pro Tools file does not represent the analog file as accurately as the Radar does.


listen to the last few seconds of the analog file when the drummer does the sixteenth note snare fill and the hits with the crash and kick.

compare to pro tools and radar.

the feel and intention of the drummer is a lot clearer on analog and pro tools than radar.

the purpose of recording a live band is to capture the intention and feel of the music, not to make a sound'.

listen to the hihats on the Radar and compare them to pro tools. Radar is mushy and undefined on the cymbals, and lacks punch overall.

I can only imagine the depth and punch that was there when monitoring live off the tape.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 02, 2005, 10:56:38 AM
"However, in this land of politically correct allowances for minorities, I don't understand this near evanglical intolerance for those who haven't swallowed the Pro-Tools Kool-Aid... I didn't buy that the Sony 3324 and 3348 machines were worth a shit, and I'm not buying the P-T stuff... does that make me a bad person? Well if it does then so be it."

Fletcher, I don't believe anybody thinks anyone else is a bad person for using another format besides protools.

A lot of the pt users at the test loved how radar sounded. I understand the way you feel, as I felt exactly the same way you did before I jumped
ship, and for a good while afterwards. And all PT users still have many
legitimate gripes with DIGI  that go far  beyond sonics, and these gripes are well noted on the DUC. But times are different, things have progressed and as sad as it is artists, producers and clients want ....

"options".

That doesn't mean it's right, it just a fact.

In all honesty, I feel MM contributed to this situation by stirring this pot with his claims and feeling towards DIGI and PT long ago. He made them known all over the WWW, including the DUC. He did'nt always come across as eloquent as he thinks.

Essentially he told every DIGI user, what you invested your hard earned money in sucks. DIGI users then argued his point as he visited all the forums and here we are today. Why he felt the need to come out and offend so many is mind boggling. I can only speculate that it was to only attract attention to his on-line persona and his forum.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 02, 2005, 11:04:41 AM
 Surprised

Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With a Pict


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Jack Schitt on December 02, 2005, 11:16:21 AM
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 06:57

Quote:

I have no idea if this is what people are hearing and are interpreting this way. I just know that the Pro Tools file does not represent the analog file as accurately as the Radar does.


listen to the last few seconds of the analog file when the drummer does the sixteenth note snare fill and the hits with the crash and kick.

compare to pro tools and radar.

the feel and intention of the drummer is a lot clearer on analog and pro tools than radar.

the purpose of recording a live band is to capture the intention and feel of the music, not to make a sound'.

listen to the hihats on the Radar and compare them to pro tools. Radar is mushy and undefined on the cymbals, and lacks punch overall.

I can only imagine the depth and punch that was there when monitoring live off the tape.



Its easy to say this after the results are revealed. Aren't you the guy that heard differences in the cymbals between two tracks that nulled completely even after 10 generations or something a while back?  I'm sure there are better ears than mine out their but you are hearing different "intent" in the same track save some eq variance? Thats a stretch of biblical proportion and frankly strains your credibility just a little in my eyes.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on December 02, 2005, 12:23:41 PM
Fletcher wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 06:56

However, in this land of politically correct allowances for minorities, I don't understand this near evanglical intolerance for those who haven't swallowed the Pro-Tools Kool-Aid... I didn't buy that the Sony 3324 and 3348 machines were worth a shit, and I'm not buying the P-T stuff... does that make me a bad person?  Well if it does then so be it.




It seems to me the reason why this whole thread got so heated is that, at least on these boards, the evangalism seems to run counter to Protools--to a ridiculous extent.  I mean a whole Asimov-like evil civilization has been invented around the platform, internet forums have pledged their fealty, blog careers have been launched based on demonizing this hunk of silicon and aluminum.  the whole condescending attitude is built into the language--drinking the Koolaid, etc. (amusing at one point....)

Pretty funny stuff, but don't be surprised when people get tired of being flicked on the head.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 01:10:24 PM
Fletcher wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 03:56

rnicklaus wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 21:01

The RADAR and Pro Tools are such different animals, they don't compete.

RADAR - 24 "voices" and 24 channels of I/O in the unit.  Needs a console.

Pro Tools - I think it will do 192 voices (128 at least) has a full digital console but only 8 analog and 8 Digital I/O per 192.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... except that Digi figured out how to make people buy more boxes.

In my, albeit limited experience... if you can't say what needs to be said in 24 tracks then you're going to have a pretty fucked up sounding record.

My kid [14] turned me onto "Who's Next" a couple of weeks ago... it reminded me what a record can sound like when you focus on a few well placed tracks with great emotional performances.  You can't make up for the lack of emotion in performance with more and more and more tracks no matter how hard we try.

In the case of having to use a console vs. not having to use a console... it seems that you still need to have a "control surface" [virtual console] even if you don't have an actual desk which seems to make the "but you can mix in the computer without a desk" argument kinda weak in my opinion.

Personally, I'm no where near as religious about this format bullshit as many seem to be... I'm kinda from the "Whatever Works" school of making records, but it appears that as the world turns I'm in the minority.

However, in this land of politically correct allowances for minorities, I don't understand this near evanglical intolerance for those who haven't swallowed the Pro-Tools Kool-Aid... I didn't buy that the Sony 3324 and 3348 machines were worth a shit, and I'm not buying the P-T stuff... does that make me a bad person?  Well if it does then so be it.

I am a RADAR user and dealer... but if I hear something better come along I will move to that platform.  To this point I've not heard anything better [though the Euphonix R-1 is pretty fucking good!! ... I just don't have that kind of money].




Hang on a second.

My intention was never to endorse what anybody uses or doesn't use.

I don't even like automation in mixes if I can help it and when working on any format I never record 1 mic one track even with unlimited tracks.   It's just my background. But this means nothing to the way everyone else may or may not work.

One could argue on the other side of the coin, that RADAR wants to sell more 18K boxes every time one needs 24 more tracks of playback on a mix.  That's just as valid of a point as the pro tools 192.  THAT is the RADAR "weakness".

If you or I prefer to keep a project at 24 or whatever tracks is irrelevant.

I am in no Pro Tools Kool aid drinking mode or 3324/48 or Nuendo.  I don't care, but I don't matter.

Who's Next was recorded 35 years ago.  When the Who recorded that project, they didn't use 35 year old technology. They didn't use 1970 technology when making records later on.  They moved on.

My point was simple.  I have no issue with RADAR VS Pro Tools.  They are different animals.  Pro Tools CAN do what RADAR does, but RADAR CAN'T do what Pro Tools does in terms of features.

That's no format war or a RADAR bash it's just MY honest observation.  

Depending on what is being done on any DAW there isn't the need for 1 analog or digital I/O per audio track.  It's pretty flexible.

I have noticed over the years though, how some fight many things that many engineers use and have success with.  I find there is more of an anti success (of formats) camp than a camp that bands together for any format.  But that's just me.

And Pro Tools or Nuendo or Logic or DP can all be used with just a keyboard and a mouse. (provided of course you have a computer)
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on December 02, 2005, 01:30:58 PM
Fletcher wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 03:56

Personally, I'm no where near as religious about this format bullshit as many seem to be...


I don't see anyone here evangelizing Pro Tools...  there are however a lot of folks in these threads who have religious hatred for the platform for reasons which are beyond me (it's the same childish ferver I see on the web targeted at Microsoft).  Some folks seem to hate it when someone else is succesful.

Personally I own and use Pro Tools, Logic, Digital Performer, SAWStudio, and Sound Forge.  I've often used RADAR systems as well.  I still use analog 2".

I don't believe you'll find a single post of mine anywhere bad mouthing any audio company (well perhaps MOTU about their DTP and their terrible product support).  If someone else wants to use a different product, who cares.  

This isn't religion -- but some folks sure make it feel like it is.

Defending a company or product from unreasonable attacks is not religious -- it's right.  I'm sure if someone made unfounded claims about the RADAR platform you'd be all over their case.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 02, 2005, 03:18:58 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 19:30

I don't see anyone here evangelizing Pro Tools...  there are however a lot of folks in these threads who have religious hatred for the platform for reasons which are beyond me (it's the same childish ferver I see on the web targeted at Microsoft).  Some folks seem to hate it when someone else is succesful.

Personally I own and use Pro Tools, Logic, Digital Performer, SAWStudio, and Sound Forge.  I've often used RADAR systems as well.  I still use analog 2".

I don't believe you'll find a single post of mine anywhere bad mouthing any audio company (well perhaps MOTU about their DTP and their terrible product support).  If someone else wants to use a different product, who cares.  

This isn't religion -- but some folks sure make it feel like it is.





Rail,


cut the crap will you ?


quick and uggly statistics :
post count

Rail Jon Rogut

Chicago test results test : 22
Re: Poll:Mixerman's 3 file request .Is there severe bass loss in any of these?If so,pick which one :  7
Re: Chicago Test Files available here : 6

about 15 other posts (LA transfer test, and a couple of other threads)


Ron Steele

Chicago test results test : 43
Re: Poll:Mixerman's 3 file request .Is there severe bass loss in any of these?If so,pick which one :  10


Randy Nicklaus

Chicago test results test : 148 !
Re: Poll:Mixerman's 3 file request .Is there severe bass loss in any of these?If so,pick which one :  28


I don't count the posts on the methodology thread and the LA test  thread.


What is you real aggenda here ?

I'm starting to wonder.

Don't tell me the pursuit of the truth, you ain't fooling me.

I like a lot of piece of gears, but I wouldn't spend over 150 posts to defend them.

This is ludicrous.

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on December 02, 2005, 03:24:22 PM
Yeah, amen, Rail.

Fletcher,

You said this...if you can't say what needs to be said in 24 tracks then you're going to have a pretty fucked up sounding record.   and I'm projecting that you are responding to the earlier quote by someone about Radar?s single-machine limitation of 24 tracks.

But your statement is totally off base.  Really.  Shall we call Bruce, Quincy and Michael and let them know that Thriller must be a pretty fucked up sounding record because Fletcher says you gotta keep it to 24 tracks?  Should we let Trent Reznor know about your disdain for his over-24 tracks of Pro Tools follies?  What makes your statement even more off base is that every artist IN HISTORY has not stopped at 24 tracks out of principal...THEY HAVE DONE IT BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY DIDN?T EXIST TO GET MORE THAN 24 TRACKS.  The Beatles were bouncing back and forth between 4 tracks to get more tracks.  Swedien and others were pioneers for locking 24 track machines together with VERY rudimentary BTX boxes.  Do you really think that the Who or Hendrix was thankful for the track limitation?  The quest for more tracks has been a well documented, nearly universal quest in our industry for the last several decades.  That was perhaps the biggest single attraction to hard disk recording of any kind.  

Then you said...My kid [14] turned me onto "Who's Next" a couple of weeks ago... it reminded me what a record can sound like when you focus on a few well placed tracks with great emotional performances. You can't make up for the lack of emotion in performance with more and more and more tracks no matter how hard we try...

No argument that technology of any kind is NEVER a substitute for an empassioned performance.  This is where the PRODUCER steps in.  You?re now blaming the technology itself for the poor music?  How about blaming the PEOPLE?  Or their production DECISIONS?  How about blaming the RECORD COMPANY?  Now you wanna blame technology that offers more than 24 tracks (read: PRO TOOLS)?  How about a new Radar ad campaign,   "Try Radar.  The only format that limits you to 24 tracks, thus preventing your creativity from getting out of control".

Then you said...Personally, I'm no where near as religious about this format bullshit as many seem to be... I'm kinda from the "Whatever Works" school of making records, but it appears that as the world turns I'm in the minority.?

Fletcher, in all seriousness, when have YOU been either not religious about the formats or from the whatever works school?  Dude, you?re one of the most outspoken guys on the net about your tools.  And only two paragraphs ago, you said, "if you can't say what needs to be said in 24 tracks then you're going to have a pretty fucked up sounding record?.  Doesn't sound too much like a whatever works way of thinking.

You again:  However, in this land of politically correct allowances for minorities, I don't understand this near evanglical intolerance for those who haven't swallowed the Pro-Tools Kool-Aid... I didn't buy that the Sony 3324 and 3348 machines were worth a shit, and I'm not buying the P-T stuff... does that make me a bad person? Well if it does then so be it...

Fletcher, the only thing that many of us care about is FALSE CLAIMS spread out RELIGIOUSLY over the Internet day after day, in post after post.  People get angry when guys start spouting off unsupported claims about loss of low end.  I'd be just as vocal if someone were standing outside of Mercenary screaming "Fletcher sells used stuff as new" and I knew it not to be true.  I?d be there telling the kid that I never had any problem with you.  This is about FALSE CLAIMS that you, to this day, have not proven in any concrete way.

Ever since the Chicago tests, you and Mixerman have been pretty much backpeddling faster than Lance Armstrong in a tsunami.  Everyone agreed to the methodology, which you largely engineered.  You had a GREAT contribution to the entire process, and for that, you should be commended, appreciated and thanked.  Profusely.  I hope I've done that enough over these threads.  But at the end of the day, at your moment to simply stand up and admit that PERHAPS YOU WERE "OVERZEALOUS" IN YOUR WELL DOCUMENTED CRITICISMS OF DIGI AND PT, you came up with excuse after excuse about why you didn?t listen to the files during the many days that they were posted, and, "well, I lied at the tests because I didn't want to skew the results" and "the differences were night and day, like rain and snow, blah, blah. You could have immediately reversed the ill will that you have largely helped to create in the internet audio community had you just admitted that the claims were not nearly as true as you had thought.  Was there a difference in the room?  Sure, we can all accept that.  But it could NOT have been a night and day difference given the resulting files and given the fact that not a single hand went up.  

Really, I think you?re missing an opportunity to just "end the madness".  And Mixerman?  He's hopeless at this point.  Credibility on this issue: zero.

And one more thing.  Before you start slinging expletive after expletive in this direction, just make sure that Randy, Rail et al don't make just a little sense.  Rail was right when he said that it's never been any of us slagging on other formats.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 03:26:59 PM
Malice,

What's your point?  

You and I have around the same number of posts on REP, yet MARSH is where you usually post.

Most of my posts were on one topic in a 14 day period of time.

Again, your point?

I know I had a blast, but the topic is almost dead.

This is another no meat semi personal attack post with no real back up.  So, there are a number of posts on a "hot" topic. No shit.

Your contribution other than personal attacks is what?







Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 02, 2005, 03:38:36 PM
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 21:26

Malice,

What's your point?  

You and I have around the same number of posts on REP, yet MARSH is where you usually post.

Most of my posts were on one topic in a 14 day period of time.

Again, your point?

I know I had a blast, but the topic is almost dead.

This is another no meat semi personal attack post with no real back up.  So, there are a number of posts on "hot" a topic. No shit.

Your contribution other than personal attacks is what?




My point is what the heck would justify this amount of posts you made on a single subject. Did you need that much to justify your position ?
I might have as many post count as you, but I don't think I have made them all in a single thread like you did.

I don't mean to try to enter another fight with you randy. I just want to understand why this debate was passionate (for you and some others) to the point of spending that much time writing about it.

If you see this as a personal attack, I am sorry. but you did not respond to my question. As for my contribution, please, I stated my views on several occasions, allow me not to post them 120 more times. I don't see the purpose of it.

This is not personal, rest assure.

But you have to admit the interesting part of the discussion could be contained in no more than 4 pages. So what about the rest of them ?

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on December 02, 2005, 03:57:26 PM
Most of my posts have either been technical in nature or keeping the thread on topic...  reminding folks what this is really about.

None of my posts have been promoting any product or maligning another.

I believe my last post summed it up fairly well.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 04:11:54 PM
Malice,

In many cases I believe I needed to post that many posts to keep the thread on track from hedging so far out in space that some starting talking about the moons of Jupiter when this was all about a volcano in Chicago, using a far out metaphor.

Many may disagree.

All good.  But some were trying to change parameters, talk about shit that didn't happen, make shit up about bloom and all sorts of horseshit.




Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 02, 2005, 04:16:33 PM
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 22:11

Malice,

In many cases I believe I needed to post that many posts to keep the thread on track from hedging so far out in space that some starting talking about the moons of Jupiter when this was all about a volcano in Chicago, using a far out metaphor.

Many may disagree.

All good.  But some were trying to change parameters, talk about shit that didn't happen, make shit up about bloom and all sorts of horseshit.




Fine by me Randy

no malice intended (well, I had to do it once)

Wink

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 04:24:12 PM
FYI, by my rough count, around 99 of my posts were done starting when my house had the first guests arrive on the 22nd, to the last leaving on the 28th over a LOOOOOONG Thanksgiving weekend.

Oh yeah, I love family vists.  NOT!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 02, 2005, 04:25:33 PM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 21:57

Most of my posts have eiher been technical in nature or keeping the thread on topic...  reminding folks what this is really about.

None of my posts have been promoting any product or maligning another.

I believe my last post summed it up fairly well.

Rail


Rail,

I put you first on the list cause you have not posted as much as the others.

My point was we are all rather passionate fellaws (like SLippy said) and we are strongly advocating our ways of doing things and we are defending the tools we chose to achieve our passion. Mixerman, you, Slipperman, me, anyone in this thread.

I wish we could all conclude that our views might digress, but our passion remains the same. We can debate about the "bass loss" another 40 pages, it won't change our respective opinions.

So how about picking our weapon of choice and record some music ...

You take PT, mixerman Radar, and I will pick what's left, as usual Very Happy

hmmm ?


peace


malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 02, 2005, 04:27:04 PM
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 22:24

FYI, by my rough count, around 99 of my posts were done starting when my house had the first guests arrive on the 22nd, to the last leaving on the 28th over a LOOOOOONG Thanksgiving weekend.

Oh yeah, I love family vists.  NOT!


My mother in law comes the 24th ...

I can relate to ya

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 02, 2005, 04:30:10 PM
Malice wrote:

"What is you real aggenda here ?

I'm starting to wonder.

Don't tell me the pursuit of the truth, you ain't fooling me.

I like a lot of piece of gears, but I wouldn't spend over 150 posts to defend them..

This is ludicrous."

 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------

Malice, are you shitting me?

from:

04/06/02

06/30/02

Mixerman had 80 posts on the duc:

 http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16& amp;  amp;Number=136869&Forum=f16&Words=&Searchpage=0& amp;  amp;Limit=81&Main=136698&Search=true&where=bodys  ub&Name=27148&daterange=1&newerval=&newertyp e=w&olderval=&oldertype=y&bodyprev=#Post136869

 http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16& amp;  amp;Number=136147&Forum=f16&Words=&Searchpage=0& amp;  amp;Limit=81&Main=136008&Search=true&where=bodys  ub&Name=27148&daterange=1&newerval=&newertyp e=w&olderval=&oldertype=y&bodyprev=#Post136147

 http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16& amp;  amp;Number=133150&Forum=f16&Words=&Searchpage=0& amp;  amp;Limit=81&Main=132843&Search=true&where=bodys  ub&Name=27148&daterange=1&newerval=&newertyp e=w&olderval=&oldertype=y&bodyprev=#Post133150

 http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16& amp;  amp;Number=133593&Forum=f16&Words=&Searchpage=0& amp;  amp;Limit=81&Main=133542&Search=true&where=bodys  ub&Name=27148&daterange=1&newerval=&newertyp e=w&olderval=&oldertype=y&bodyprev=#Post133593

 http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16& amp;  amp;Number=129673&Forum=f16&Words=&Searchpage=0& amp;  amp;Limit=81&Main=129366&Search=true&where=bodys  ub&Name=27148&daterange=1&newerval=&newertyp e=w&olderval=&oldertype=y&bodyprev=#Post129673

And all of these .......80........posts are the reason for the chicago test.

{edited}

oops,

add one more on for me.





Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on December 02, 2005, 04:34:36 PM
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 16:11

But some were trying to change parameters, talk about shit that didn't happen, make shit up about bloom and all sorts of horseshit.


"Bloom".

When AEs start using audiophile jargon, the argument is over.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 04:39:44 PM
Malice,

There is no contention from me anyway, that anybody should change gear because of this or any other test.



Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 02, 2005, 04:40:43 PM
Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 22:30

Malice, are you shitting me?

The question should be, did MM have an agenda?

And malice, why are you tracking our posts so closely?

Do you have an agenda?

Just joking malice, but it is what it is .

oops,

add one more on for me.




Not tracking your post, my wife is watching french version of american idol, and I cannot stand it, so I suddenly have time on my hands ...

seriously, I explained the reason of all this in my last post ...


We are passionate guys, and we are actually defending our rig because it reflects our philosophy of work. I do think PT have limitations and so is RADAR and 2" reel to reel. It would be unfair not to admit we are a bit religious about it (and that was the reason I responded to rail).

So yes, we all have aggendas ...

btw, I was merely trying to offer a way to conclude this over sized thread.

In all peace

malice

(guys, help me, I cannot be more positive than that, it would ruin my reputation)

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 02, 2005, 04:41:59 PM
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 22:39

Malice,

There is no contention from me anyway, that anybody should change gear because of this or any other test.




I doubt someone would do it anyway

gee, my post count is climbing too

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on December 02, 2005, 04:47:55 PM
malice wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 16:41


gee, my post count is climbing too

malice



Isn't a high post count the whole point?

(one more for me)

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 02, 2005, 04:52:53 PM
Malice wrote:

"We are passionate guys, and we are actually defending our rig because it reflects our philosophy of work."

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------

Malice, what is there to defend?

And who is......... we?

And where.... did any PT guy attack...we....or you, for your choice of platform or philosophy of work?

Show me, any where on the Internet, where this happened to you or....we.

Were all passionate, and this this test only exists for that reason.

And....... MM and his claim was the catalyst and reason for the test.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 05:00:47 PM
Ron is right here.

Nobody has come out and said 2" sucks, RADAR sounds bad, DP can't transfer bottom end (oops Slipperman did), Nuendo blows chunks (oops, a few have here after the test) or anything else.

Only ONE format was the focus of this "test", based on repeated claims.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 05:06:49 PM
RKrizman wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 13:47

malice wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 16:41


gee, my post count is climbing too

malice



Isn't a high post count the whole point?

(one more for me)

-R


On MARSH, with a few posts you are like a dumbshit, or something (Cotton) and by posting more and more one can become king of the world, or something.

I thought post count was encouraged.  
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on December 02, 2005, 05:09:05 PM
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 14:06

I thought post count was encouraged.  


Yes - on most forums the moderators get paid more for higher hits and message counts.

Rail
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fibes on December 02, 2005, 05:10:52 PM
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 17:00

 DP can't transfer bottom end (oops Slipperman did.


Slipperman did not say shit about DP some other motherfucker like yourself got an F in reading comprehension.

He was talking about the MOTU HD 192 (with external clocking) which some folks prefer over the Digi 192.

Whatever.

If you are gonna smear, use your own shit.




Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 05:15:45 PM
Fibes wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 14:10

rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 17:00

 DP can't transfer bottom end (oops Slipperman did.


Slipperman did not say shit about DP some other motherfucker like yourself got an F in reading comprehension.

He was talking about the MOTU HD 192 (with external clocking) which some folks prefer over the Digi 192.

Whatever.

If you are gonna smear, use your own shit.







Calm down.

OK, I change my generic DP to Motu HD 192 and generic PT to Digi 192.


Peace.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 02, 2005, 05:16:04 PM
UHHH......Fibes, come on.

"DP can't transfer bottom end (oops Slipperman did"


DP/MOTU

MOTU/DP


So what if Randy got MOTU mixed up with MOTU.


"Whatever."

OK.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 02, 2005, 05:21:04 PM
Fibes wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 23:10

rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 17:00

 DP can't transfer bottom end (oops Slipperman did.


Slipperman did not say shit about DP some other motherfucker like yourself got an F in reading comprehension.

He was talking about the MOTU HD 192 (with external clocking) which some folks prefer over the Digi 192.

Whatever.

If you are gonna smear, use your own shit.




I know Fibes, I know...

You don't really expect people to read all those 40 pages and remember those details ...

gotta go, I'll come back when the counter will hit 80 pages


meanwhile, have a nice hollyday season

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 05:24:49 PM
Hey, show me where I am incorrect about what he said.

Most of his transfers were via Motu and and "handful" with the digi 192.

I know what I read.

From Slipperman on MARSH

<<As you know, we do literally HUNDREDS of song transfers per year from 2" to DAW.

Most on the MOTU 192HD's. A handful of projects on the Digi HD192's. A couple on the old 888/24's.... and the occasional oddball duped at another shop using something else like RADAR or whatnot.

When we make these transfers... we usually aren't really trying to compare ANYTHING from a sonics standpoint. We became resigned to our fate in that respect quite a while ago.... We are just trying to get our material from the medium we prefer to track to(2").... to the medium we pretty much HAVE to mix from(DAW)....... whether we like it or not sonically.

Personally....

I don't.

Like

it

sonically.>>

Are you guys claiming that he is using the MOTU interface with PT software?  Or is he using DP?

Let me know.


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fibes on December 02, 2005, 06:52:30 PM
Slippy uses Logic.

With MOTU Hardware.

There is a big difference between hardware and software, that is my reason for clarification.

Maybe I do need to calm down but details are pretty important in my shop.

I use both Motu hardware and software and have plenty of balls.

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 02, 2005, 06:57:04 PM
malice wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 17:21



meanwhile, have a nice hollyday season

malice




Jeesu Crisco! It's CHRISTMAS!

Even Satan worshippers celebrate it!! THEY EVEN HAVE A TREE!


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 07:00:07 PM
Fibes wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 15:52

Slippy uses Logic.

With MOTU Hardware.

There is a big difference between hardware and software, that is my reason for clarification.

Maybe I do need to calm down but details are pretty important in my shop.

I use both Motu hardware and software and have plenty of balls.




I don't doubt that your system sounds great.  I have close friends who make killer sounding music on DP.  Logic too!

But also on Pro Tools. They don't like people talking smack about their platform either.

That's the rub here.  Many here, even people who don't use Pro Tools, gang up on it.  Yet ONE bad word about their own format and the gloves are off.

Just think about that for a second.  if someone was in here saying that they made a xfer through MOTU HD 192 to DP and the bottom was gone and they started called DP Alibad, you would be pissed.

Yet......

Just food for thought.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 02, 2005, 07:39:11 PM
rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 16:11


All good.  But some were trying to change parameters, talk about shit that didn't happen, make shit up about bloom and all sorts of horseshit.





Yes. It was a fun shootout. It wasn't for that porpoise, but that's cool... knocked another bird down with a single stone..

The problem was the first responders... didn't..

Wink


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fibes on December 02, 2005, 08:16:40 PM
R.N.,

I don't use Protools because i have a problem with things like "industry standard" being linked to insane upgrade paths. The concept of why people go that route is not lost on me either. I wouldn't think to diss something I don't use and therefore  should have no issues with. Slippy didn't diss DP but he did say that the MOTU HD192 reveals that loss. I don't doubt he hears it, the digital realm is different than the analog realm and just like him i adjust my workflow, micing, eq and whatever else levels the field. If i had my druthers i'd be working on a large format console with a great 2" machine but in the end the most important part of the equation is the talent that makes that shit sing. Without that it SISO.

If Slippy dissed DP that'd be it, i'd remain silent,  but some of us don't like misunderstandings to become truths or understandings. Seeing two misinterpretations in this thread got my goat and i'm tired of using beer for my cereal. I want the goat back.

If DP didn't work for me I'd change it in a sample but i'm not a freelancer so i don't have to roll with what is available at the room I'm going to. Then again if i was some big shot LA mixer dude I'd demand to not have to use shit that didn't work for me and my artists. I always thought rank has its privelidges. If i was the assistant to the dude who insisted on using an inferior platform (IMO) then i'd be super pissed but i'd shut up and make it work 110%.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 02, 2005, 09:26:11 PM
Fibes wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 17:16

R.N.,

I don't use Protools because i have a problem with things like "industry standard" being linked to insane upgrade paths. The concept of why people go that route is not lost on me either. I wouldn't think to diss something I don't use and therefore  should have no issues with. Slippy didn't diss DP but he did say that the MOTU HD192 reveals that loss. I don't doubt he hears it, the digital realm is different than the analog realm and just like him i adjust my workflow, micing, eq and whatever else levels the field. If i had my druthers i'd be working on a large format console with a great 2" machine but in the end the most important part of the equation is the talent that makes that shit sing. Without that it SISO.

If Slippy dissed DP that'd be it, i'd remain silent,  but some of us don't like misunderstandings to become truths or understandings. Seeing two misinterpretations in this thread got my goat and i'm tired of using beer for my cereal. I want the goat back.

If DP didn't work for me I'd change it in a sample but i'm not a freelancer so i don't have to roll with what is available at the room I'm going to. Then again if i was some big shot LA mixer dude I'd demand to not have to use shit that didn't work for me and my artists. I always thought rank has its privelidges. If i was the assistant to the dude who insisted on using an inferior platform (IMO) then i'd be super pissed but i'd shut up and make it work 110%.



I hear you.  

The only thing I believe we disagree on is that you think some pros only use pro tools because it's standard or they are forced to use it.

You are making a statement like if Rick Rubin (for instance) hated pro tools he would have to use it anyway.  That ain't gonna happen.  Or Bob Rock. T Bone Burnett is going to work in a format he doesn't think works for his artists?  I don't know what he uses, by the way.

To me, this whole "pro tools is a compromise" is NOT what the people I know say, think or whisper. DAWs in general?  Maybe, but not just Pro Tools.

If CLA (who is not a friend by the way) insisted that all his tracks be sent on 4 RADARs or Nuendo, DP, Logic or anything, the bands and labels would do it.  Green Day is requesting him, not his gear.

People get hired, at that level, because of what they do, not what they use. If they use DP, Logic, RADAR, nobody cares. I know people will get all up in arms and disagree.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: FFoster on December 03, 2005, 01:54:33 AM
malice wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 15:38

rnicklaus wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 21:26

Malice,

What's your point?  

You and I have around the same number of posts on REP, yet MARSH is where you usually post.

Most of my posts were on one topic in a 14 day period of time.

Again, your point?

I know I had a blast, but the topic is almost dead.

This is another no meat semi personal attack post with no real back up.  So, there are a number of posts on "hot" a topic. No shit.

Your contribution other than personal attacks is what?




My point is what the heck would justify this amount of posts you made on a single subject. Did you need that much to justify your position ?
I might have as many post count as you, but I don't think I have made them all in a single thread like you did.

I don't mean to try to enter another fight with you randy. I just want to understand why this debate was passionate (for you and some others) to the point of spending that much time writing about it.

If you see this as a personal attack, I am sorry. but you did not respond to my question. As for my contribution, please, I stated my views on several occasions, allow me not to post them 120 more times. I don't see the purpose of it.

This is not personal, rest assure.

But you have to admit the interesting part of the discussion could be contained in no more than 4 pages. So what about the rest of them ?

malice


AMAZING!!! Your side of the argument is reduced to questioning  someone's post count??
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: RKrizman on December 03, 2005, 02:04:37 AM
Fibes wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 20:16


Seeing two misinterpretations in this thread got my goat


As well it should.  That's Randy's point, and the reason why some people have just had it with the anti-Protools Shriners in their little clown cars.

-R
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 03, 2005, 02:10:45 AM
checkmate110 wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 07:54


AMAZING!!! Your side of the argument is reduced to questioning  someone's post count??



AMAZING!!! you totally missed my point.



malice


PS: I just read YOUR side of the argument. Dude I was so fucking floored. No kidding, I learned a lot from you so far. Keep on the good work buddy Wink
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 03, 2005, 02:23:03 AM
tick......tick....tick.....


Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

jUst kidDinG mAlicE.

Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 03, 2005, 03:38:15 AM
About my side of the argument :
to Checkmate110


page five :

malice wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 08:58

Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 08:49

Yeah, which was it, a node or a null???  And what exactly are you talking about?

For the record, I think Mixerman probably did have a problem with a transfer, and lost some low end.  I'm just not sure it was due to the inherant "problem" with Pro Tools.  Wiring or an impedence mismatch seems more likely to me, but I wasn't there.

it is interesting to hear from those of you who were there for the event.




Especially from Steve Albini,

I wonder what he heard and why it turned out that he did not raise his hand.
The whole purpose of this test was not about Mixerman seeing pink elephant or not, it's about what could have caused what he (and numerous of esteemed colleagues ) has heard.

I haven't check the posted chunks myself, I will do this afternoon, but I would love to have a full description of the event from the "rebels" camp as well as from the "empire" point of view (if I may borrow Fletcher's imagery).

malice






page six :

malice wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 20:10

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:19


If the Mixerman LA test happens, I propose, no mixes just raw drum and bass files set up as one would listen in a tracking situation.



If the Mixerman LA test happens, and I would love it happens, I would suggest more dynamic files (no offense steve, those sounded good) as Bob Ohlson suggested it was a dynamic problem. I agree that there is no use to keep the guitars or anything else than bass and drums.

I would also agree with mixerman that three excerpts should be blind tested and not more than that.

thirdly, I don't know if you need to be  35 in the control room at one time.

I was reading what Steve Albini reported, and I must say I was a bit disappointed he felt the need to refrain from saying anything while he was experiencing the bass loss problem.

Most of all, I wonder why the bass loss, wich was the main purpose of this test, was not the object of a personal and secret vote that should have been written on paper like the rest of the blind test

That would have prevent anyone from being influenced by the others, biased or not.

I haven't been listening to the test files yet in a satisfactory environment, I will do later,and I would like to thank, nevertheless, all the people involved.

best

malice





and also :


malice wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 20:23

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 20:16


If you listen to Steve's recording and read what he said, you can tell there was a lot of energy flying through the power supply.

It's huge.  Again, forget the test for a minute and listen to the stereo imaging on the drums.  Holy shit!


No doubt about it Wink Steve is Steve !


Quote:


Now, is that the same as finishing a bass and drum take and listening for problems in the performance?  Will that use more juice from the power supply?

That's above my pay grade for sure.


I agree, I was just suggesting some other type of content for experiment sakes.

I'm really trying to understand more than arguing. I have experienced this problem myself, and perhaps I'm just willing to know what I have been doing wrong with the transfer if indeed it was an operator (moi) mistake (wich I won't necessary dismiss)

malice



page 12 I try to convince Randy to let Mixerman recreate the anomaly :

malice wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 09:06

I don't understand this. If Mixerman can repeat the experience and show you a typical setup were this bass lite thing occur, wouldn't it be interesting to take 2 hours of your life and check that with him ?

Aren't we all here to learn something ?

You are agreeing to spend days debating in front of your computer with people you don't even know, and you would refuse to meet them in person to solve this mystery, in your own town (I'm talking to the LA guys here).

2 hours at Cello's (or equivalent) with free coffee, 2 weeks here of endless and useless discussions ...

C'mon guys, see the opportunity

1) there is a bass lite problem that your maid can hear : you will learn something

2) there isn't : Mixerman says : "I'll be damn, my bad, sorry guys, can I buy you a drink..."

End of debate.

SO ?


...




Whatever, no one's listening ...




malice



then in the same page, I wonder why three persons heard a problem in the CR and nobody raised his hand :

malice wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 17:42

BT wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 17:12

Well for what it?s worth?..

I was at the test sitting with the guy who made the Digi 192.I can say this he was one of the nicest guys I have come across in a long time. We chatted about clocks converters and the like while Steve and the rest got things going.

Now when the transfers began into Protools with the 192 on its own internal clock at 48k, upon playback there it was no impact, harsh highs and yes a loss of bottom end!!At this point I stood up and looked at a tech friend of mine and he agreed, my new friend from Digidesign also stood with a confused look on his face.


This is the third person that heard the bass drop, I'm beginning to wonder if all this was not a dream ...

Quote:



This leaves a couple of things to consider one being the Lavry converters, of which I will admit I am no fan of personally, that were used in the final two track mix. Did these in some way level the playing field to the point of not being able to tell a dam thing? What about Nuendo while were at it, did this massage our tracks to digital twins?


Doubt it would be the Lavrys, But something might be wrong in the printed 2 tracks.

three persons heard it, it is not on the 2 tracks mix ????


what the fuck ?????


Quote:


I think if it were just one simple pass at 48k on the Digi clock it would have been easy to pick it out.

In the test files posted there is not an obvious loss of low end but you do not have the original tape to listen to either.

Without getting into a digital-analog debate I think most that were there were fine with using Pro Tools from a digital standpoint by the end of the evening and there were some interesting clock issues sorted out also.





Thanx for sharing this, I'm more and more wondering about the validity of the procedure and I wouldn't take this test as final as some of us would love to do.

malice




then you have to wait until post 35 to see me starting wondering about why the thread never ends and seems to drift into some Mixerman bashing more than arguing over the more intelligent posts and contributive posts.


and this is what Krisman has to answer :


RKrizman wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 07:09

malice wrote on Thu, 01 December 2005 00:53


It's amazing how to see how many pages have been posted in this thread and how most of the participants keep on ignoring the more contributive and inteligent posts.

Too busy they are slandering Mixerman. You know who you are ...

malice


And your contribution is.....what?

-R



and this is YOUR contribution :

checkmate110 wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 07:54

AMAZING!!! Your side of the argument is reduced to questioning  someone's post count??






The other members should do a search on your two other posts in this forum and wonder about who you are by now.

I did contribute, and stated my opinion at the beginning of the thread. I don't need to discuss about it more than that.

My agenda is clear : I heard the problem on several occasions, I do agree it is not audible in the files, so I'm just asking myself why, and that is all about what this conversation should be.

You come as an anonymous poster and you reduce my argumentation  to the last point I made about this oversized thread not solving the problem.

Again, I heard a bass loss. I'm not alone. Mixerman ( whom I've worked with and who knows and works with PT when needed btw ) , Slipperman, who I know personally and who own a facility with a plethora of analog and digital formats  used on daily basis, Bob Ohlson who is probably the poster I admire the most here and whose credits and knowledge is undiputable, Steve Albini, Fletcher, and a couple of other members...

All these people including myself are trying to understand what they have heard.

I merely try to proove that the post count of some of the participants speaks volume about their point not being made in spite of the evidence there is no bass loss in the files.

So lemme ask you, as your contribution is so scarse and could be resumed as three smartass sentences: what is YOUR experience and how can YOU explain we have heard this problem and not you ?

I dare you to tell we are deaf or delusional. Because you would have to back this up against respected professionals that are, contrary to you, well known from the rest of us members of this forum.

I don't know if you're "checkmate", may be you should have chosen "stalemate" instead


malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 03, 2005, 04:06:25 AM
Ron Steele wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 08:23

tick......tick....tick.....


Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

jUst kidDinG mAlicE.

Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy

`
I so will have to live with that

Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on December 03, 2005, 06:08:52 AM
Quote:


Its easy to say this after the results are revealed. Aren't you the guy that heard differences in the cymbals between two tracks that nulled completely even after 10 generations or something a while back? I'm sure there are better ears than mine out their but you are hearing different "intent" in the same track save some eq variance? Thats a stretch of biblical proportion and frankly strains your credibility just a little in my eyes.


well, post them at random and I will pick them out.

I'm very surprised you don't hear them.

anyway for the ten generation thing I picked one out but never got an answer.

this is a lot easier.

I can't believe nobody out there can hear the difference between 48 and 96 on THE SAME MACHINE.

it's getting to be nutty.

really... what the heck does it take to null out sound files on a program? anyone can do that, even a deaf person.

without going into a Max-bashing fest I would like to become the guinea-pig for this... please post Radar 48 and 96 and pro-tools 48 and 96 ... change the names of the files and I will pick them out on my laptop speakers.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 03, 2005, 11:55:31 AM
Max,

before the files were revealed, I suggested that discussing the 96K VS 48K files would be interesting.

Some were claiming that the Lavry being at 96K lost bottom end, and 96K can do that.

Did you find this to be the case between these formats at 48 and 96?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 03, 2005, 12:08:22 PM
Quote:

Again, I heard a bass loss. I'm not alone. Mixerman ( whom I've worked with and who knows and works with PT when needed btw ) , Slipperman, who I know personally and who own a facility with a plethora of analog and digital formats used on daily basis, Bob Ohlson who is probably the poster I admire the most here and whose credits and knowledge is undiputable, Steve Albini, Fletcher, and a couple of other members...

All these people including myself are trying to understand what they have heard.




That's just fucking great but,

What exactly did they fucking hear?

When and where did they hear it?

Did they ever try to "understand" or investigate what it maybe, or reproduce it and trouble shoot [ KINDA LIKE THIS TEST ] ?

If this happens to them everyday, could they please post a file of the 2" before it hits the daw, and after it is in the daw?

Or will we not be able to hear it on a CdR or nuendo/lavry set-up?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: rnicklaus on December 03, 2005, 12:24:52 PM
Malice,

Whatever you feel you want to get all riled up about, this test was done well and the files are there for everyone to hear.

I don't believe there are people saying this didn't happen to Mixerman.  This test was only to find out IF a 2" tape could be transferred into PT via the 192 without severe bottom end loss.

You bet there were people at this test, when aware of what format was being played, without a doubt, believe they heard "the problem".   But there are things to show that maybe they weren't so sure at the time and hindsight made the feeling a bit stronger.

One person at the test said he could hear night and day differences in the files we all have.  Not subtle, but differences a deaf person could hear. Not one person at the test or in the days following said anything more than the differences were "less severe" on the files than live.  Not that all the files now lacked bottom or anything close to that.  

When you add Slipperman to the mix, I believe you are actually diluting the PT 192 problem as he claims he mainly uses the MOTU HD192 and he thinks it sounds very close to the Digi unit.

Some are claiming that the Lavry into Nuendo at 96K skewed the results.

IF this is the case, then why would anybody single out Pro Tools and the 192?

If these same people believe the Lavry/Nuendo combo had the same issue, Slipperman believes he has the same issue with the MOTU HD192 as he does with PT, then why is PT the issue?

But, yes some claim they have a severe bottom end loss with the 192.  Nobody has ever produced a file showing that fact, however.

This test produced 9 files.  The simple reality is do these files show severe bottom end loss or not?  NOT why it doesn't.....

That is the most bizarre part of the post test shitstorm.  People are incensed that the 192 didn't show severe bottom end loss.  

Don't blame the files, just produce others that show the problem, but make sure the test is neutral and monitored.

How simple is this?  VERY!

If some are having this problem "all the time" and others aren't and now we have this test that goes into the "others aren't" camp, what's the global emergency?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on December 03, 2005, 02:44:30 PM
RKrizman wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 07:04

That's Randy's point, and the reason why some people have just had it with the anti-Protools Shriners in their little clown cars.

-R


Kriz,

That is F U N N Y!

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fibes on December 03, 2005, 06:42:28 PM
RKrizman wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 02:04

Fibes wrote on Fri, 02 December 2005 20:16


Seeing two misinterpretations in this thread got my goat


As well it should.  That's Randy's point, and the reason why some people have just had it with the anti-Protools Shriners in their little clown cars.

-R


Hahahahaha. It's my point too. We're just missing somewhere in semantics...


Quote:

If CLA (who is not a friend by the way) insisted that all his tracks be sent on 4 RADARs or Nuendo, DP, Logic or anything, the bands and labels would do it. Green Day is requesting him, not his gear.

People get hired, at that level, because of what they do, not what they use. If they use DP, Logic, RADAR, nobody cares. I know people will get all up in arms and disagree.




Exactly.

There are some who can't make that demand and i think are a little pissy because of it. I would use PT in a heartbeat if it suited my business plan and I needed more interchangabilty. The few folks i work with have found the AAF transfer flawless. I loaded an entire record from PT and was mixing in less than an hour. Multiply that hour by the number of times I do that and I barely could buy the cabling for the HD system.

Usually the biggest problem with a good DAW is between the DAW and the seat.

That doesn't infer that I prefer the sound of digital to great analog but i also prefer other formats to cd too...

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: FFoster on December 03, 2005, 10:42:32 PM
How ironic that you mention my post count!! wink wink!
The fact remains that there is no appreciable bass loss in any of the 9 (or 3) files. Remember, not a hand was raised in Chicago when asked. As for name calling, [edited by moderator]
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 04, 2005, 01:04:37 AM
The Resonater wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 14:44

RKrizman wrote on Sat, 03 December 2005 07:04

That's Randy's point, and the reason why some people have just had it with the anti-Protools Shriners in their little clown cars.

-R


Kriz,

That is F U N N Y!





Yes it is. I hope this is the dawning of a less serious age, an age of hilarity.

This is the dawning of the age of hilarious, age of hilarious, and of hilariouUuuuus aahhhh hilarious! Huh larry us!


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on December 04, 2005, 01:07:16 AM
hello larry-us!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 04, 2005, 02:37:38 AM
checkmate110 wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 04:42

How ironic that you mention my post count!! wink wink!
The fact remains that there is no appreciable bass loss in any of the 9 (or 3) files.


You do know how to read, do you ? You did notice I agree with that already ?

Quote:


Remember, not a hand was raised in Chicago when asked.


Do you have comprehension issues in Indiana ? I also stated  that I wondered why as Albini, Fletcher and another person heard it plain as day. It's in bold character. Should put them in red so that you notice.

Quote:


As for name calling, [edited by moderator]


where did you see I insulted you ? I called you anonymous, I suggested you change your name to "stalemate" (far from calling you a dick, you will agree) , and I mentioned you made smartass answer.That doesn't mean I called you a smartass in my book. Do you think I will let you troll me ?

I can see you don't have much to say, I suggest you say it elsewhere. This thread is almost over, I doubt you will have anything else to contribute.

Anonymous trolls are not that popular over here.

malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: maxdimario on December 04, 2005, 09:09:33 AM
Quote:

Max,

before the files were revealed, I suggested that discussing the 96K VS 48K files would be interesting.

Some were claiming that the Lavry being at 96K lost bottom end, and 96K can do that.

Did you find this to be the case between these formats at 48 and 96?


My concern between 48 and 96 lies in the 3000 to 15000 Hz range.

I don't know about the bass losses.

My feeling is that 96 on the same machine could cause apparent bass losses by making the high frequencies more present and in-your-face (by very little).

Most 'bass loss' fenomena, as I suspect 85-95% of pro converter differences are due to the analog stages, which often total less than 20 dollars of components per channel (i doubt that it even reaches 20 dollars per channel on most converters).

consider that one transformer alone could cost many times that, and if you were to build real line amps in those converters (discrete high-current)like they used to in pro machines the box itself would be bigger, with bigger power supplies etc.

As far as I am concerned most of the bass problem is in the analog stages.

there are some DAC chips that do exhibit less punch than others, I am sure.. but I haven't enough experience with building digital equipment, only modding it.

Anyway the difference in the audible high end is quite noticeable and shows that in a real-world situation the Nyquist math theorem has little to do with the sound that comes out of the master buss... regardless of the technical dogmas preached for convenience's sake by you know whos..
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 04, 2005, 09:38:37 AM
Quote:

 I also stated that I wondered why as Albini, Fletcher and another person heard it plain as day. It's in bold character. Should put them in red so that you notice.

 

Well a lot of us wondered why Fletcher and another person did not say anything on the spot?

I'm clear on why SA didn't right away, but that was the whole fucking point of the test.

Also, I'd like to point out that there were some extremely respectable AE's in the room that don't even know about MM and PSW that did not raise their hands. And if we are going to break this down to only believing "who you know" and what their "instant" credibility is, that's a pretty sad and short sighted approach.

Also, do you have your own opinions?  Or our you just going to continue to hold on to what some else said, and refuse to have an open mind that may be the test was done correctly?





Quote:

I called you anonymous, I suggested you change your name to "stalemate" (far from calling you a dick, you will agree) , and I mentioned you made smartass answer.That doesn't mean I called you a smartass in my book.

Do you think I will let you troll me ?

Anonymous trolls are not that popular over here.




Mixermans is Anonymous and has been known to be { edited for decorum's sake }, what gives?

When did you become the "Chicago test results" thread police? I am really getting sick of the way some use the word troll so loosely. Who the fuck gave you the right to label somebody a troll. I have seen this sort of shit in another forum. Labeling someone a troll there is used as method to bury opinions and thoughts. It's a defensive move and a weak one at best, unless of course you can call someone a troll and delete their posts, then it's just a weak move made by someone who just got his ass kicked.

Malice, what is really bothering you?

Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: malice on December 04, 2005, 10:52:53 AM
Ron Steele wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 15:38

Quote:

 I also stated that I wondered why as Albini, Fletcher and another person heard it plain as day. It's in bold character. Should put them in red so that you notice.

 

Well a lot of us wondered why Fletcher and another person did not say anything on the spot?



Maybe he's like me. Maybe he too things this thread is 42 pages of utter Bullshit.

Quote:

Mixermans is Anonymous and has been known to be a smart ass, what gives?



Mixerman is administrator here. His right to stay anonymous has been discussed and accepted before both the REP and the MARSH started. You, I'm afraid, have little chance to state you wishes in that matter.

Quote:


When did you become the "Chicago test results" thread police?


I'm responding to a personal attack Ron. It doesn't concern you. I simply reported "stalemate"'s post to REP administration and I received a PM from Fletcher saying that he put this all mess in the Saloon not to have to deal with it, even if this poster was out of line. Thus it contradicts what Brad Blackwood wished for this place and I feel I have to defend myself.


Quote:


I am really getting sick of the way some use the word troll so loosely.


And I feel sick dealing with them. I have a couple of things to say to you in private Ron, check you PM in 5 minutes


malice
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: bblackwood on December 04, 2005, 11:00:10 AM
Look guys, we're more relaxed in the enforcement of R/E/P policies concerning behavior in the Saloon - it's the place to fight it out - but ad hominem attacks and name-calling belong elsewhere.

This is the Saloon, but it's still R/E/P - show some respect.

Last warning, next time the thread is locked.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: compasspnt on December 04, 2005, 11:38:09 AM
Ron Steele wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 09:38


Labeling someone a troll [...] is used as [a] method to bury opinions and thoughts. It's a defensive move and a weak one at best...



The same goes for the use of expletives in public, in my mind.  It shows a lack of availability of appropriate verbiage, and is a weak method of expressing an opinion.  Some may also be offended by it.

I am not picking on Ron here, whom I respect; I am picking on many.
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on December 04, 2005, 03:01:05 PM
Can we still say "anti-Protools Shriners in their little clown cars."?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: compasspnt on December 04, 2005, 06:05:41 PM
The Resonater wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 15:01

Can we still say "anti-Protools Shriners in their little clown cars."?



Now that, "in my mind," is funny!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on December 04, 2005, 06:23:41 PM
OK.  Anit Pro Tools Shriners in their little clown cars it is!

Or maybe we could just use APTSITLCCs to make it simple.  
Steve
Very Happy
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on December 04, 2005, 06:38:01 PM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 23:23

Or maybe we could just use APTSITLCCs to make it simple.  
Steve
Very Happy


Could you please use that in a sentence?
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 04, 2005, 08:19:51 PM
-honka-


M
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on December 04, 2005, 08:37:42 PM
The Resonater wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 17:38

Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 23:23

Or maybe we could just use APTSITLCCs to make it simple.  
Steve
Very Happy


Could you please use that in a sentence?
APTSITLCCs have an irrational dislike for ALSIHAD!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on December 04, 2005, 10:02:31 PM
minister wrote on Mon, 05 December 2005 01:37

The Resonater wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 17:38

Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 23:23

Or maybe we could just use APTSITLCCs to make it simple.  
Steve
Very Happy


Could you please use that in a sentence?
APTSITLCCs have an irrational dislike for ALSIHAD!


Yes.  It is agreed then.  The use of APTSITLCC's will become a staple in our professional dialog.  A signpost to denote those that choose out-of-the-mainstream transport to call attention to themselves in the parade of audio life.  These wayword individuals should not be granted our support for their odd behaviour, but should be tolerated like any other having a malaise of the mind.  Fortunately, these individuals typically surface only occasionally, impressing us with their strange alternate reality, only to disappear until the next parade, at which time they don the proper attire and display their peculiarities proudly, reminding us just how bizarre life can be sometimes.

APTSITLCC'S are hereby entered into our doctrine!  So let it be known!

Go forward throughout the land, letting all know that we finally have an acronym with which to identify these mishaps of the Creator.

Let us spread the word!  APTSITLCC'S is borne!


Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: compasspnt on December 04, 2005, 10:16:56 PM

I especially appreciate the little hats...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Tidewater on December 04, 2005, 10:18:48 PM
Apistlesapostles? Spell it again?


M

index.php/fa/1987/0/
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: minister on December 05, 2005, 12:58:54 AM
i like how they drive in circles in those parades.

or was that talk in circles...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Ron Steele on December 05, 2005, 08:04:59 AM
testing 123, testing 123..........


Ok.

It's good to go.

Cool
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: jimmyjazz on December 05, 2005, 10:30:07 AM
The Resonater wrote on Sun, 04 December 2005 15:01

Can we still say "anti-Protools Shriners in their little clown cars."?



HELL yeah!

Oh, shit.




DAMN.



(Sorry, Terry.)
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: djui5 on December 06, 2005, 04:40:43 AM
well, this was fun.

Let's do it again!
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: The Resonater on December 06, 2005, 03:09:02 PM
djui5 wrote on Tue, 06 December 2005 09:40

well, this was fun.

Let's do it again!



We'd have to get the APTSITLCC's to agree, and my guess is that they've gone back into hiding until the next parade...
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Extreme Mixing on December 06, 2005, 04:08:00 PM
I guess I have a question, or a thought, or something...

I was just wondering if anyone has done a tally of the test results in those cases where people actually guessed which mix was which, to find out how accurate their predictions were.  Did the number of correct answeres rise above the random chance of guessing all three?  Since this involved mostly audio engineers, it should be a pretty good group of critical listeners.  That should make a pretty telling test of whether the "difference" makes any difference at all.

Anyone?

Steve
Title: Re: The Chicago test results...
Post by: Fletcher on December 06, 2005, 05:21:17 PM
Well this has gone farther than it ever needed to go... and I'm really not into hearing about anyone's behavior here anymore... so, I'm locking this thread and going to enjoy watching it drop to the bottom of the ocean.