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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23 | ||
No way. 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. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:23 | ||
No way. 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. |
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. |
Quote: |
or seeing bears behind trees. |
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. |
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. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 13:23 | ||
No way. 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. |
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 |
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:06 | ||
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 |
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. |
electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:33 | ||
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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? |
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 |
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. |
bblackwood wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:01 | ||
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... |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:08 |
Was the rough mix test blind is one question... |
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. |
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? |
Ron Steele wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:38 | ||
If you mean the initial test concerning the low-end, it was not listened to blind. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
RKrizman wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:37 | ||
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 |
RKrizman wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:33 |
Does the same thing happen if you get small? -R |
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. |
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. |
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 |
Curve Dominant wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 22:51 | ||
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. |
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. |
DivideByZero wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 23:21 | ||
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
malice wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 23:58 | ||
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 09:21 | ||
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 |
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. |
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. |
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... |
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 |
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. |
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. |
malice wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 11:10 | ||
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 |
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! |
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. |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 10:41 | ||
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? |
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 11:33 | ||||
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 |
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) |
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 |
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. |
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) |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
maarvold wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 12:58 | ||
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. |
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. |
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. |
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... |
Quote: |
...yet my stated results oppose my 'hidden agenda', which--in my mind--validates them further... |
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 |
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? |
minister wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:26 | ||
|
electrical wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 11:33 |
I'd like to hear more from those who were there for the initial listening. |
azuolas wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:44 | ||||
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. |
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 13:43 | ||
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:13 |
This thing was made WAY to complicated. Thanks, Mixerman |
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 |
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. |
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 15:58 | ||
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 |
azuolas wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:30 | ||
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. |
azuolas wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:30 | ||
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. |
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:36 | ||||
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 |
Mixerman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 14:36 | ||||
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 |
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. |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 22:36 |
I really believe the studio and staff should remain neutral, including editorial comments. |
Quote: |
Please tell us which is the analog file, and then let us compare them to only two digital files. |
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? |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:07 |
[ And what do you mean by the mind blowing comment? |
Ron Steele wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 16:11 | ||
Mixerman quote:
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? |
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 |
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. |
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. |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 18:47 | ||
Isn't that what ABx is like some of the time? |
tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:10 | ||||
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 |
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. |
Quote: |
Didn't you say that once a file has been dumped into the WAV format it's useless anyway? |
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. |
Quote: |
There is yet more to write, but I am going to work now. |
Curve Dominant wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:34 | ||||
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?
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... |
tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 17:22 | ||||
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.
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. |
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? |
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. |
Curve Dominant wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 03:06 | ||
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. |
tmheli wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 18:13 | ||
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. 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". 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. |
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! |
Curve Dominant wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:06 | ||
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. |
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. |
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 |
jimmyjazz wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 05:45 | ||
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. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 21:45 | ||
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. |
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 |
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. |
malice wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 00:16 | ||
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 |
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. |
Quote: |
And no I do not think it would be impossible for him to refute the results. Look at today. |
Quote: |
A couple of hours is no big deal. |
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. |
Quote: |
Of course we have more to hear from Mr Albini and Fletcher hasn't gone into any detail yet, so who knows, right? |
RKrizman wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 02:33 |
Does the same thing happen if you get small? -R |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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? |
Quote: | ||
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
Quote: |
If you play the files back through a 192, then they all suffer the low end cut. Right? |
Quote: |
So they should pretty similar. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 12:51 | ||
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. |
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." |
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. |
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. |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 13:46 | ||
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 14:54 | ||
That would be great to have. The boomy system in my Explorer reveals all. -R |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote: |
BTW each Digidesign unit (SYNC, 192, 96) utilizes a PLL in every point of the loop sync chain. |
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. |
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)? |
Quote: |
2.If you (and others on this Forum) prefer the sound of a less stable clock, why might that be? |
Quote: | ||
I'd be interested in any information regarding this claim. |
Quote: | ||
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). |
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. |
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. |
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. |
The Resonater wrote on Tue, 22 November 2005 21:27 |
So, what are your thoughts on the sudden disappearance of the bass loss? . |
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. |
Quote: |
With that in mind, can either of you hypothesize on why we hear no severe bass loss in the posted files? |
Quote: |
So, what are your thoughts on the sudden disappearance of the bass loss? This is really not making any sense at all... |
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 |
jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 23 November 2005 08:32 | ||
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.) |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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... |
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 05:48 |
...otherwise pro-tools would be called semi-pro-tools. |
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. |
Fletcher wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 05:17 | ||
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]. |
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... |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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". |
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. |
danickstr wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 15:10 |
varies with frequency, . |
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 |
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 |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 01:31 | ||
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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... |
The Resonater wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 17:31 | ||
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? |
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. |
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. |
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................. |
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. 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. |
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. 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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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) |
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.. |
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. |
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. |
Quote: |
What does this have to do with severe loss of bottom end? |
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 10:48 | ||
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. |
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. |
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.. |
Quote: |
You are assuming that every engineer using analog tape is pinning the meters during guitar overdubs? |
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 |
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 12:11 | ||||
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.
I've seen that myself. Producers folly and clown actions of course... |
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 |
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 12:39 |
Randy...my last post was loaded with sarcasm. Sorry you didn't see it. 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. 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. This is not about me nor you..so since we agree, lets get back to our regularly scheduled program..shall we? |
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 10:14 | ||
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 |
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) |
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) |
Quote: |
The 3 tracks are very close. I appauld the team for doing a great job of matching. |
Level wrote on Sun, 27 November 2005 14:32 | ||
Back on page 19..I said..
..and in this..I mean Levels. So..there is your answer. It is..NO!!! |
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" |
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.................... |
Quote: |
This is not about me nor you..so since we agree, lets get back to our regularly scheduled program..shall we? |
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. |
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... |
Extreme Mixing wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 09:36 | ||
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 |
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 |
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. |
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 14:38 | ||
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: |
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 12:11 | ||||
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 |
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! |
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. |
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. |
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 14:38 | ||
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.? |
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. . |
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 12:59 | ||
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:05 | ||
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 |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:20 | ||||
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? |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 15:22 | ||||||
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 |
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". -GK |
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? |
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. |
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". |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 17:04 | ||
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 |
Quote: |
Also, I'd like to reinvite Gannon into this discussion. Cheers, Carter |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 17:56 | ||
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 |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 02:06 | ||||
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! |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 18:29 | ||||||
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 |
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. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 18:48 | ||
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 |
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. |
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..... |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:12 | ||
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 19:25 | ||
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 |
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? |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:16 | ||
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. |
ivan40 wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 21:11 | ||||
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.............. |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 04:18 | ||||
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. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 21:47 | ||||||
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 |
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. . |
Mixerman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:33 |
Rick, Randy, and Rail have all refused to come. Interesting, no? |
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. |
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 |
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. |
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 23:54 | ||
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 |
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 |
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? |
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 |
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." |
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. |
RKrizman wrote on Mon, 28 November 2005 20:28 |
give a flying fig about any subsequent test? |
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. |
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. |
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 |
Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 01:52 | ||
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. 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 |
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'. |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 11:42 | ||
I am not sure this is accurate based on one issue I witnessed. |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 10:50 | ||||
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. |
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 ? |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 09:34 | ||||
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. |
Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 12:33 | ||||||
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 |
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 |
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. |
blueboy wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 13:14 | ||
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 |
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! |
Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 12:33 | ||||||
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 |
blueboy wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 13:51 | ||
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 |
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... |
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. |
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 |
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 |
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 16:14 | ||
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. |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 00:23 | ||||
What are the parameters of the test? |
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 |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 00:40 | ||||||||
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. |
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. |
Quote: |
The way the end of this real test went down when some didn't get their desired results was bazaar, in my opinion. |
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. |
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. |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 02:25 | ||
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 |
Quote: |
<deleted by RKrizman> |
Ron Steele wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:05 | ||
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. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 18:53 | ||
Sorry, my bad. I'm so daft. It was Rick that censored himself, for whatever reason. Randy, if I've offended you, sorry. -C |
R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 03:22 | ||||
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. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 21:53 | ||
Sorry, my bad. I'm so daft. It was Rick that censored himself, for whatever reason. Randy, if I've offended you, sorry. -C |
RKrizman wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 06:08 | ||||
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 |
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. |
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. |
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 00:23 |
It's quite strange how the moderators here selectively remove posts. |
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. |
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. |
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 Post by: bblackwood on November 30, 2005, 11:17:37 AM
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... Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 11:32:03 AM 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. Post by: jimmyjazz on November 30, 2005, 11:38:18 AM
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. Post by: archtop on November 30, 2005, 11:39:13 AM they don't sound the same. Why a few of you want to crucify MM for this is totally weird Post by: bblackwood on November 30, 2005, 11:39:15 AM
That's fine (and you've made that point quite obvious through this thread). I'll continue searching... Post by: Slipperman on November 30, 2005, 11:41:09 AM
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. Post by: spoon on November 30, 2005, 11:42:47 AM
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 Post by: jimmyjazz on November 30, 2005, 11:45:20 AM * 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? Post by: Ron Steele on November 30, 2005, 11:57:21 AM 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. Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 30, 2005, 11:58:18 AM
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 Post by: Fig on November 30, 2005, 12:19:59 PM
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 ). 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 Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 30, 2005, 12:20:16 PM
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 Post by: rnicklaus on November 30, 2005, 12:27:23 PM
|