Post by: Gannon Kashiwa on November 04, 2005, 11:03:45 AM
Like you said in your other post, it'll be good to walk in and know exactly what we're doing and not make anything up as we go.
Thanks and see you in a couple of weeks!
-GK
Post by: electrical on November 04, 2005, 01:02:53 PM
| "fletcher" |
If the desk in the CR in which this is happening has "TR" capability, a "TR" of the monitor mix is run. "TR" to be checked before each pass. |
Total Recall? How's about just nobody touch the faders once we have the rough mix.
Just to clarify something Fletcher said in the original thread, my suggestion for making the digital reference 0vu= -15dBfs has nothing whatsoever to do with the reference level on the analog master tape, it is just a nice round number that mimics the headroom of any decent analog tape alignment.
We did a series of experiments here trying to establish proper operating levels with different tape formulations, and we established 500 nWb/m as our standard for GP9, 499 and BASF 900.
456, BASF 911 and 468 are all suitable for 320nWb/m.
406 is suitable for 250nWb/m, but I haven't seen a roll of it in years.
With any of these tapes at these alignments, 15dB of headroom is expected, but with any analog tape there is a soft boundary. There may be 10 or more additional dB of "usable" headroom before you reach MOL, but I certainly try to avoid running any tape that hot. There is some debate within the engineering community whether "slamming" the tape sounds good or not. Having conducted the experiment many times myself, I'm in the "it sounds like shit" camp.
So, I think 15dB of headroom is the absolute minimum you should expect from a digital system, though I have seen 14- and 16-bit systems set-up for 12dB with protection (limiting).
For the purposes of this test, I don't particularly care what the digital system's headroom is, but I suggest 15dB as a minimum of acceptable headroom. If we get overs, we can knock it down a dB or two, just like in the real world.
How do my other suggestions (metering the console inserts, making the A/B switch using the multitrack snake) sound to y'all?
Post by: RKrizman on November 04, 2005, 01:11:38 PM
If you're doing a pass at -16 I'd at least be prepared for the possibility that you might get a few overs on your converter inputs, and decide in advance what you're going to do if that happens. I assume you'll be turning off soft limit.
Also, does it make sense to also print this to tape, just to verify that it's not the mere act of going to digital that itself is causing the missing ingredients. Certainly you can't pass it around that way, but it's a good way to archive and could at least be trotted out at an AES seminar or whatever.
-R
Post by: rnicklaus on November 04, 2005, 02:07:22 PM
It's down to how much level each brand and formulation can tolerate for each engineer's style of work.
Add in meter ballistics, slew rate of the electronics, tape formulation and speed means someone in the session must be very well versed in all of this to optimize the recording.
I know I come from the school of not wanting the tape recorder to alter the sound of my recordings. I always look for what goes in comes back out - as close as possible with head bump, tape compression and noise, however so slight, being introduced.
Looking through this subject shows how far, I can only speak for myself, I have to go to learn the same detail in all things digital.
There seems to be no standard reference level for pro tools and there are a few levels being discussed and will be tested. Bob O has talked about loading with Pro Tools converters and some consoles. On the other hand, the analog set up is going to be killer. 2" 16 track, and as stated aligned perfectly.
This test will be good for so many reasons.
There is a lot to learn.
For what it's worth I will always prefer to record analog but embrace the daw format with open arms as it's here to stay.
I have no dog in this fight.
Post by: Mixerman on November 04, 2005, 03:09:49 PM
| RKrizman wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 10:11 |
Also, does it make sense to also print this to tape, just to verify that it's not the mere act of going to digital that itself is causing the missing ingredients. Certainly you can't pass it around that way, but it's a good way to archive and could at least be trotted out at an AES seminar or whatever. -R |
That is precisely what the Radar is for: To prove that this isn't merely a "digital problem."
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 03 November 2005 16:54 |
It looks like this will basically turn into a converter shootout. |
To claim that this is merely a converter shoot-out, is to ignore the fact that there is a clock involved with this as well. Further, the impetus of this transfer is my claim that there is a glaring issue with the destruction of low-end energy that should be addressed by the HDs maker, rather than just a subjective issue of sound quality.
Just so we're clear, if this were an issue of the mid-range being accentuated (as was theorized in the last thread), then the HD playback would sound louder than the 2" playback. In my repeated demonstrations of this problem, I never perceieved the HD playback as louder.
Mixerman
Post by: ajcamlet on November 04, 2005, 03:30:03 PM
Post by: RKrizman on November 04, 2005, 04:03:08 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 15:09 | ||
That is precisely what the Radar is for: To prove that this isn't merely a "digital problem." Mixerman |
That may be true, but at this point you don't want to have your methodology assume what you're trying to prove.
Having an example of the mix in which no digital conversion at all takes place might help to put the differences in converters in perspective. If I were there and had a 2 track handy I'd definitely run some tape. (The mix out of the console to tape and the mix through and out of the final 2 track converter to tape.)
OTOH, if the difference is as glaring as you have suggested then it probably shouldn't much matter what you mix it to, so no big.
I'm just glad you guys are doing it at all, and am very curious about the outcome. Whatever is observed, I hope a reason for it is also discovered.
-R
Post by: RKrizman on November 04, 2005, 04:06:11 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 15:09 | ||
To claim that this is merely a converter shoot-out, is to ignore the fact that there is a clock involved with this as well. |
Good point. I would consider a clock to be part of the converter, and I am assuming that each converter will run on its own clock.
-R
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 04, 2005, 04:15:09 PM
| Quote: |
To claim that this is merely a converter shoot-out, is to ignore the fact that there is a clock involved with this as well. Further, the impetus of this transfer is my claim that there is a glaring issue with the destruction of low-end energy that should be addressed by the HDs maker, rather than just a subjective issue of sound quality. Just so we're clear, if this were an issue of the mid-range being accentuated (as was theorized in the last thread), then the HD playback would sound louder than the 2" playback. In my repeated demonstrations of this problem, I never perceieved the HD playback as louder. Mixerman |
Then the question to you Mixerman is: What was your operating level and sample rate for PT when you experienced this problem? There's a lot of haggling over those very parameters.
Since we have new thread that's specifically about the methodology, I think it would be wise to define the purpose of this test, namely: Does what goes into a Pro Tools HD system, come out of it? Specifically the bass response.
The discussion about what Flux level and tape formulation seems to slip off the topic of test. The tape is playback source (or control) operating at a standard level of +4dbu.
Another question: Is anyone body bringing an RTA to this thing? I'd like to see 8 bars played off of tape, and then the same 8 bars off of PT and Radar.
-Carter
Post by: Fletcher on November 04, 2005, 04:39:36 PM
| electrical wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 13:02 |
So, I think 15dB of headroom is the absolute minimum you should expect from a digital system, though I have seen 14- and 16-bit systems set-up for 12dB with protection (limiting). |
In my world headroom is set up in even numbers... so with RADAR in the fray the minimum headroom possible is 14... hence the 16 and 20 suggestion... we could do 14 and 20 if the congregation agrees [it don't matter on my end... but I have no idea what the PT thing can/can not handle].
...and yes, "don't touch the fuckin' console" should be the message/thought/mantra of the day... but shit happens and TR [meaning 'Total Recall' is a valid verification method].
Post by: RKrizman on November 04, 2005, 04:53:42 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 16:39 | ||
In my world headroom is set up in even numbers... so with RADAR in the fray the minimum headroom possible is 14... hence the 16 and 20 suggestion... we could do 14 and 20 if the congregation agrees [it don't matter on my end... but I have no idea what the PT thing can/can not handle]. |
I don't think it's a question of what "the PT thing" can handle--unless I'm mistaken, it's a question of how hot the signals on the tape are and whether they will exceed digital zero when fed straight into the converters--any converters. In a 24 bit system there's really no need to push it. I have my Apogees (as opposed to my 192) aligned hot so that a typical transfer from tape will engage the soft limiting a bit. But if I turn off the limiting, I get overs.
Might be worthwhile to get a solid recommendation from Digi and try to find out what levels MM used/uses. And have a plan for what to do if during the transfer you get overs.
-R
Post by: rnicklaus on November 04, 2005, 05:16:11 PM
Some people may align 2" to +9 over 185 but be conservative going to tape.
Others may align to +6 and bang the shit out of the tape.
In case #1 playback levels from the 2" will hit it's intended target - console, digital xfer - at a reasonable level.
In Case #2 there may some hot levels hitting the target. For a console the headroom may handle it - for a digital transfer it is a different story.
At the end of the day, both cases may have the same level on tape but the levels going out of the machine will not be the same.
Something to consider.
Post by: Mixerman on November 04, 2005, 05:55:51 PM
In this case, Steve Albini will be bringing an analog multi-track recording that he has sounding the way he wants it to sound. He will make a static mix of that recording the way he feels it should sound. The decisions that he made as to how hard he hit what tape at what operating level are past decisions, and have no bearing on the transfer at hand. What is at issue, is what happens to the audio when this tape is transferred into the HD unit.
HD input levels can only be determined by how hot the level of the program material is coming off tape. See Randy's post above.
Mixerman
Post by: RKrizman on November 04, 2005, 06:14:33 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 17:55 |
HD input levels can only be determined by how hot the level of the program material is coming off tape. |
Exactly. So maybe it makes sense to make that determination when you actually run some signal from tape to PT on the day. Pick a level that is fairly hot without going over, then another one 4 db down.
MM, when you do this how hard do you usually hit the converters?
-R
Post by: rnicklaus on November 04, 2005, 06:30:32 PM
An engineer having the sound they like on tape and the output level of the 2" machine have nothing to do with each other.
Again, someone could align the machine (I do not believe this will be the case here) and have reference tones for + 6 and then record 3 db or more hotter than the tones.
Analog does not have an absolute zero - digital does.
Post by: crm0922 on November 04, 2005, 06:31:57 PM
If that is the case, you either lower the output level from the output of the tape machine, attenuate it with the console or something, or trim down the inputs on the digital device if it has such feature. Many converters do not, or if they do they are internal and shouldn't be messed with in ordinary discourse.
Hmm... If you set up the oscillator for +4dbU and align the tape to that, it should come in somewhere near -15dbFS if the tone is passed through at unity. So in order to make "all things equal", one would have to either reduce the output from tape for both listening tests, or correct the difference later by matching output levels when the dump is already complete (if "overs" were ocurring).
Very curious about the results, especially Fletcher, MM, and SA's opinions on RADAR vs. Alsihad with the same material.
Chris
Post by: RKrizman on November 04, 2005, 06:58:15 PM
| crm0922 wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 18:31 |
Do RADAR and PTHD have analog trims to allow the reference level to be set without the need to attenuate the signal from tape? I don't use either of those formats regularly, but in my experience, when stuff comes from tape the "soft boundary" can allow big transients to exceed 15db from nominal. This works on tape, but will result in "overs" in the digital rigs. |
The HD 192 has dual trim pots for each input and each output analog channel. Each channel can have 2 different trim levels stored which may be chosen between by the software. (this is in addition to +4 versus -10 option)
Also, FWIW, according to the 192 manual:
" In +4 dBu operating mode, the 192 I/O is a 24-bit digital audio device capable of producing audio signals up to +26 dBu across +4 dBu input/output. The default headroom value is 18 dB. This translates to a maximum output of +22 dBu."
Keep in mind also that it's not just a question of digital overs. If you slam the analog electronics too hard and they harsh out there is no fuzzy tape saturation to mitigate the blow.
-R
Post by: djui5 on November 04, 2005, 07:15:08 PM
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 05, 2005, 01:29:21 AM
| CWHumphrey wrote |
Most PT systems I've used have been setup for -18dBfs. It's same old argument we used to have with the dat machines. Do you push up the operating level to use up as many bits as possible? |
I would guess no, not with PTHD's noise floor, which seems sufficiently deep to handle -18dBfs.
Mr. Kashiwa should weigh in on this, and he will, no doubt.
My concern was that -15dBfs (initially suggested by Mr. Albini) seemed just a tad overboard. Perhaps not for analog, mind you, but we're testing for PROPER transfer, bearing in mind optimal use of said kit, are we not? IOW: We don't want to turn this into a "See what happens when we abuse the kit..." sort of thing, do we?
This whole issue of "push up the operating level to use up as many bits as possible" is really a relic of outdated digital gear with its (previously) low bitrates and flawed A/D convertor designs - none of which should be applied to today's paradigms, not to mention be imposed on this testing procedure. Right?
Pending Gannon's input, I propose we settle on a -18dBfs transfer.
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 05, 2005, 04:13:35 AM
| Curve Dominant wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 06:29 | ||
My concern was that -15dBfs (initially suggested by Mr. Albini) seemed just a tad overboard. Perhaps not for analog, mind you, but we're testing for PROPER transfer, bearing in mind optimal use of said kit, are we not? IOW: We don't want to turn this into a "See what happens when we abuse the kit..." sort of thing, do we? This whole issue of "push up the operating level to use up as many bits as possible" is really a relic of outdated digital gear with its (previously) low bitrates and flawed A/D convertor designs - none of which should be applied to today's paradigms, not to mention be imposed on this testing procedure. Right? Pending Gannon's input, I propose we settle on a -18dBfs transfer. |
I asked the question, where was Mixerman's operating level in PT when experienced the issue in question? Some engineers are still reaching for the top of the digital scale. I don't do that anymore, but at one time, I was very much a disciple of that theory. I repented on the 2nd Rod Stewart standards album, after having a look at the VU meters on the SSL E that we were using for monitoring (yep, we were mixing ITB). Since then, I'm a big fan of 0VU--again.
I think it would be a mistake not check it out at various operating levels
-Carter
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 05, 2005, 11:28:58 AM
The challenge is that we are dealing with a system. How easy is the console for the tape machine to drive vs. the 192 and what is the overload point of the tape returns? Different consoles and tape machines are likely to produce different results. I've experienced a particular console (MCI 500) where the low frequency problem was obvious and another particular console (SSL 9K) where it wasn't.
Post by: J.J. Blair on November 05, 2005, 12:36:23 PM
Post by: Fletcher on November 05, 2005, 02:26:10 PM
| kensluiter wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 01:29 |
If you don't minding me chiming in, I believe it makes sense , as Fletcher suggests, to make the transfer at a couple of different calibration levels on the 192's; but I think it would be a real mistake not to make one of those levels -18dbfs. Over the years (since 1992, in fact), I have experienced and observed engineers shift from the -14dbfs=0 VU "use all the available bits" method, to the more conservative -20dbfs=OVU "unity gain" approach. In the two cities/markets I've worked in (Chicago and LA) it seems the -18dbfs has become the informal standard. I think Steve Albini's involvement in this certainly helps validate the process, but no one I know who make records w/ PTHD aligns the converters to -15dbfs as he is suggesting doing. I also strongly believe that the hi-res rough mixes (both from tape and PT playback) should be printed back into the 192's. I'm not arguing that the Prism converter isn't a better converter than the 192; but I think playback of the multitrack while resolving from one clock whilst printing thru converters that are resolved to another seperate clock will give the tape playback an unfair advantage. If you use two seperate clocks (one for the Prism, one for the 192) even though the mix is being generated in the analog domain; will smear the audio on the PT mix. If I was mixing a record, I would probably resolve one to the other, but for this purpose, I wouldn't do anything that would make the 192 behave any differently than it would if it was running off it's own internal clock. |
I was talking about doing the test using the internal clock, then a couple of different external clocks to see if they make a difference... it was just a thought.
I am working from the presupposition that there is going to be a pretty large difference when the audio is played back from tape and when the audio is played back from PT... and less of a difference when the audio is played back from RADAR... so, my question [at least one of the questions I have] is whether these differences will stem from the analog electronics in both units [converters], or if this difference will stem from the clocking source.
One of the questions I believe this will answer is whether the audio from PT can be improved with an external clocking source... like the clock from a RADAR or Apogee "Big Ben", etc.
As for the -18dbfs headroom thing... fine with me. I would probably have suggested 14 & 20... but 14 and 18 would work.
We could also go for 18 and 24 as far as I'm concerned... but I would like to walk in with a solid and agreed upon methodology for the levels at which these tests are recorded... I DO NOT want this particular arguement/discussion/whatever you want to call it while we're all standing in the middle of a control room.
This needs to be agreed upon well in advance of the test(s) performed.
Post by: compasspnt on November 05, 2005, 02:45:48 PM
Preference here would be -18, -20, perhaps -24 just to see.
Post by: rnicklaus on November 05, 2005, 03:48:44 PM
Years ago, I had a terrible problem with a 2" to 2" transfer.
I believe that was a Delany Bramlett record where there were 2 producers.
We all cut the basic tracks and had settled on 2" 16 track as it was going to be a R&R record.
The project grew - 2 drummers horns strings way too much stuff.
As I went on to mix another record, the project went to a very prominent LA studio and one producer decided to xfer the project to 2" 24 track (this was '77 or '78) and do some overdubs.
A few weeks later I am back on the project and push play on the new tape and I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing.
The original tracks were cut where the kick and snare would kiss 0 VU (250 alignment) the bass was sitting at 0 - you get the picture.
The new tape with new important overdubs had the original tracks that were transferred peaking, best case, at -7! I was all about WTF?
I call the studio that did the xfer and told them about it and of course they claimed that the original multitrack was recorded that way - and they say it was xfered over as recorded. Of course I told them no way.
It turns out the way they had the xlr patch bay in the back of the room was in addition to both machines connecting to the console so there was the huge load on the system when both machines were patched together. (trying to remember that long ago)
When I had them bring up the original tape without both machines being patched together, the levels were as I recorded them. With both machines patched to each other, the level fell almost 10DB.
They never noticed this or questioned it and I assume never looked at tones.
From that point on I will never take any kind of transfer for granted if I see or hear anything close to off in any way.
Just a thought as this test comes together.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 05, 2005, 05:18:25 PM
Unfortunately it turned out a lot of consoles didn't have enough headroom to operate at -20 (potentially +26-+30 dBM analog peaks) and a lot of gear manufacturers didn't want to spring for line drivers and power supplies capable of bulletproof performance at that level.
So where we're at is that best case, digital gear needs to be aligned to the limitations of the analog gear it is being used with. Worst case the analog circuit of some digital gear isn't up to working optimally with some analog gear.
Post by: The Resonater on November 05, 2005, 08:20:13 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 19:26 |
I was talking about doing the test using the internal clock, then a couple of different external clocks to see if they make a difference... it was just a thought. One of the questions I believe this will answer is whether the audio from PT can be improved with an external clocking source... like the clock from a RADAR or Apogee "Big Ben", etc. |
RE: the clocking of the various devices...as you probably know, Dan Lavry swears up and down that nearly all digital devices work optimally when using the internal clocks. FWIW...
Post by: RKrizman on November 05, 2005, 09:10:49 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 14:26 |
I am working from the presupposition that there is going to be a pretty large difference when the audio is played back from tape and when the audio is played back from PT... and less of a difference when the audio is played back from RADAR... so, my question [at least one of the questions I have] is whether these differences will stem from the analog electronics in both units [converters], or if this difference will stem from the clocking source. |
First, I wouldn't presuppose that at all. Secondly, if there is a problem it might stem from the interface between the devices, as Bob O has suggested.
-R
Post by: RKrizman on November 05, 2005, 09:14:12 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 14:26 |
We could also go for 18 and 24 as far as I'm concerned... but I would like to walk in with a solid and agreed upon methodology for the levels at which these tests are recorded... I DO NOT want this particular arguement/discussion/whatever you want to call it while we're all standing in the middle of a control room. This needs to be agreed upon well in advance of the test(s) performed. |
That's fine, but realize that in the act of doing this if you are getting digital overs then you have to back it down, no matter what levels you decided on in advance, otherwise you're just misusing the equipment. So I'd add that contingency to your methodology.
Should this be in the methodology thread?
-R
Post by: malice on November 05, 2005, 11:21:08 PM
| The Resonater wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 02:20 |
RE: the clocking of the various devices...as you probably know, Dan Lavry swears up and down that nearly all digital devices work optimally when using the internal clocks. FWIW... |
Except devices with bad clock in them.
malice
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 06, 2005, 03:51:16 AM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 22:18 |
where we're at is that best case, digital gear needs to be aligned to the limitations of the analog gear it is being used with. Worst case the analog circuit of some digital gear isn't up to working optimally with some analog gear. |
That sums this whole issue up very succinctly.
My concern is that this test is perhaps an excercise in looking for "sonics" in an obscure example, and then drawing overly-broad conclusions from that very narrow application.
Then there is the whole issue of: Who will decide what the results are? How will the results be measured? Can you graph the baseline standard of "lacking balls" along with corresponding standard deviation points?
And as Bob has pointed out, there are matices of standard deviations on both the analog side and the digital side. Adds up to lots of variables.
The big question mark in this whole excercise is: How is the outcome measured and documented? That whole side of this equation doesn't seem to have been addressed at all so far. The technical side has this great team of engineers in place to sync the machines, and that's the essential first step.
But how in the hell are we going to process the outcome?
I propose we work that out before the test is conducted.
Post by: Fletcher on November 06, 2005, 07:14:34 AM
| The Resonater wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 20:20 |
RE: the clocking of the various devices...as you probably know, Dan Lavry swears up and down that nearly all digital devices work optimally when using the internal clocks. FWIW... |
Yes, he does... and he may very well be 1000% correct... does that mean we shouldn't experiment? Take one learned man's statement as "gospel truth" and move on? If that's the way you want to work, go for it... there are a plethora of "red states"... me, I live in a "blue state" and question constantly but that could just be a personal problem.
| RKrizman wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 21:10 | ||
First, I wouldn't presuppose that at all. Secondly, if there is a problem it might stem from the interface between the devices, as Bob O has suggested. |
Hence the concept of doing "straight wire transfers", hence the concept of employing different recording / repro levels.
If issues of "loading" are removed from the picture, and if issues of "interface bewteen devices" is removed from the picture [as a variable]... then you're left with "machine vs. machine".
| RKrizman wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 21:14 | ||
That's fine, but realize that in the act of doing this if you are getting digital overs then you have to back it down, no matter what levels you decided on in advance, otherwise you're just misusing the equipment. So I'd add that contingency to your methodology. Should this be in the methodology thread? |
A method of dealing with this should be defined here [then agreed upon in the "methodology" thread... it's a close call].
While there is a distinct possibility of running into "overs" at 14 or 16, I would hope that possibility will be reduced at 18, 20 or 24. If SMPTE recommends 20, and Digi ships their units at 18, and RADAR can roll with any of 4 choices... then all we need to do is pick two from within the capabilities of the machines.
So, what are the proposals of the day? [Those should be discussed in the "methodology" thread... the idea being to keep that thread defining the actual methodology, while this thread discusses "merits"... yeah, I know its a confusing pain in the ass... but I would like to be able to used the "methodology thread" as a reference/procedure manual during the tests so we don't do something out of turn or that wasn't previously defined and agreed upon].
I'm good with 16 and 22... and see who runs out of "breathing room" first? The upper area of the headroom of tape is in the +15 area [though you can hit it harder and get into the "compression" thing... but as Mr. Albini has pointed out previously... he likes to stay out of that level area when he's recording].
Post by: Fletcher on November 06, 2005, 07:30:04 AM
| Curve Dominant wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 03:51 |
My concern is that this test is perhaps an excercise in looking for "sonics" in an obscure example, and then drawing overly-broad conclusions from that very narrow application. |
Could you explain this statement in a familiar language... like English?
| Quote: |
Then there is the whole issue of: Who will decide what the results are? |
The people "in the room"... and if anyone has their shit together enough to post the results on a website or burn CD's of the event... y'all can play along at home.
| Quote: |
How will the results be measured? |
I dunno... it's music... why don't we say that the results will measured "subjectively", much like we measure what it is a "good song" and what is a "bad song". Just a thought for ya.
| Quote: |
Can you graph the baseline standard of "lacking balls" along with corresponding standard deviation points? |
I don't think it can be graphed... but I'm sure a picture could be drawn
| Quote: |
And as Bob has pointed out, there are matices of standard deviations on both the analog side and the digital side. Adds up to lots of variables. The big question mark in this whole excercise is: How is the outcome measured and documented? That whole side of this equation doesn't seem to have been addressed at all so far. The technical side has this great team of engineers in place to sync the machines, and that's the essential first step. But how in the hell are we going to process the outcome? I propose we work that out before the test is conducted. |
Hence the purpose of this thread and the "Methodology" thread.
The outcome will be measured and documented in the following manner... we're going to listen to the shit side by side... there will be some people who've been around for a while and might be considered to have a fairly good set of "ears" attending the event.
To recap... we're going through wires, from analog deck to digital machine. A rough mix will be set on the desk, the analog playback will occur, while that playback is recorded through some pretty high resolution converters to a storage medium. Remove the wires between that machine and the console, hook up a new machine [PT / RADAR / whatever ya got] to the console directly with wires, verify that the level returning from the new machine is identical to the levels that were returned from the previous machine [I think a 1kHz test tone will work splendidly for level verification], listen to and print the same "mix"... lather, rinse, repeat until all formats have been recorded and played back at various input levels, sampling rates, possibly with different clocks... whatever is the agreed up methodology that appears in the "methodology" thread.
The "outcome" will be recorded, and possibly that recording will be distributed in some manner... maybe over the internet, maybe by mail... that has yet to be determined. From there, each listener can draw their own conclusions.
Any problems with any of this Eric? Any positive/potentially productive comments or thoughts? The questions you have raised have all been covered several times over the course of this discussion... if you're going to play along, please cover all the previous information before providing further redundant questions.
Peace.
Post by: Mixerman on November 06, 2005, 01:15:11 PM
| RKrizman wrote on Sat, 05 November 2005 18:10 | ||
First, I wouldn't presuppose that at all. -R |
That is precisely the presupposition that should be made.
The whole impetus of this little shindig, is my claim that there is a severe loss of low end in this sort of transfer when made to HD, a loss that does not occur when the same transfer is made to Radar.
The whole purpose of this "test" is to prove or disprove my statement, once and for all. I find it humorous that there is an enormous amount of hedging going on around here, and I might point out, none of it is coming from me.
There have been a number of nquiries here as to my operating level on the HD unit, when I originally discovered the problem. I'm usually operating on the HD at an input of -18, as anything hotter than that usually hits the console too hard. However, I do not operate under any hard and fast rules, particularly since input level is wholly dependant on how hot I've printed the source material to tape.
I have transferred into HD and Radar at varying levels, and the loss of low-end in HD is apparent regardless of level, while the Radar always performs well in comparison.
Mixerman
Post by: rnicklaus on November 06, 2005, 01:44:41 PM
What kind of hedging is being done here?
Also to presuppose you are right before the test is done is as "dangerous" as to presuppose you are wrong. For anyone to go into the test with a presupposed outcome adds a flaw to the test IMHO.
This should not be a test of RADAR. This is about the low end of a transfer into Pro Tools from what you said was 8 or 9 tracks of bass and drums from 2". The test has grown from that target already.
RADAR is a great machine. I used the Otari RADAR 1 on a long project in '98 and bought 2 IZ RADARs for the followup project in 2000. I am no stranger to the format.
Like it or not Pro Tools and the rest are here to stay.
Post by: Fletcher on November 06, 2005, 02:22:51 PM
If you have 3 or 4 factions that disagree on a premise, and try to set up a test where each of these 3 or 4 parties has their own agenda... then, when you form the final methodology with all of these various factions in agreement, you can pretty well rest assured that the test procedure will not be skewed in a manner that will support any one agenda.
So, while my presuppostion is that PT is gonna suck dogs... that ain't necesarily so. To say I'm walking into this without a presuppostion would be bullshit... and I'm just not too long on that at the moment.
Post by: malice on November 06, 2005, 03:01:03 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 19:44 |
Mixerman, What kind of hedging is being done here? Also to presuppose you are right before the test is done is as "dangerous" as to presuppose you are wrong. For anyone to go into the test with a presupposed outcome adds a flaw to the test IMHO. |
Dear Randy,
Imho, this is exactly the contrary. Presupposition is the base of scientific experiments. Without presupposition, you wouldn't make test to corroborate your theories.
If you don't want to prove anything, why would you spend time for this ?
malice
Post by: rnicklaus on November 06, 2005, 03:10:18 PM
| malice wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 12:01 | ||
Dear Randy, Imho, this is exactly the contrary. Presupposition is the base of scientific experiments. Without presupposition, you wouldn't make test to corroborate your theories. If you don't want to prove anything, why would you spend time for this ? malice |
I have no presupposition that the test will go either way. It's a test.
Mixerman is not doing this test. This is being done by others.
We can agree to disagree but I will still stick to the presupposition that people doing the testing should be going in with an open mind. To presuppose that just because Mixerman said it's so therefore makes it likely is interesting in that he has made a side career in bashing the format.
Pretty simple really.
Post by: Mixerman on November 06, 2005, 03:13:34 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 10:44 |
Mixerman, What kind of hedging is being done here? |
You are not familiar with some of the history of this debate, therefore, the hedging would not be so obvious to you. I would imagine that the large majority of posters here have a genuine and unbiased interest in the results.
| Quote: |
Also to presuppose you are right before the test is done is as "dangerous" as to presuppose you are wrong. For anyone to go into the test with a presupposed outcome adds a flaw to the test IMHO. |
Presupposing I am right gives a purpose for the test in the first place. There have been claims that this is merely a converter shootout. This is NOT a converter shootout. This is an attempt to disprove my claims, that have been supported by two other independant and respectable sources, Slipperman and Bob Ohlsson. The claim being: There is a significant and unacceptable loss of low-end when a transfer is made from 2" to HD, a loss that does not occur in all digital mutitrack machines. The assumption is that there IS as loss, and the goal is for an independent group to attempt to DISPROVE the assumption.
An assumption is not an agenda. It's merely a place to work from. I expect everyone to go in with an open mind. Frankly, the large majority of the people that will be at this particular test, are going in with the presupposition that I will be disproved.
This concept falls under scientific law and theory. Theories are always assumed true with the goal of disproving the theory. Repeatability offers the comunity a way of making the theory more concise and accurate. When I first discovered the problem, it was a hypothesis. Since Slipperman and Bob Olhsson have also discovered the problem independently of me, my hypothesis becomes a theory. If you read the link above about theory, you will see that a theory is accepted as true until it's disproven.
| Quote: |
This should not be a test of RADAR. This is about the low end of a transfer into Pro Tools from what you said was 8 or 9 tracks of bass and drums from 2". The test has grown from that target already. |
I used bass and drums. Adding some instruments isn't going to change the results. But this is a good example of why the assumption is so important. IF the group transfers an entire production and notices no loss of low-end, then the next test should be totransfer bass and drums only. The assumption allows for that next logical step. IF the group discovers precisely the low-end lop-off that I have described using more than bass and drums, THEN the theory remains valid, and the rsults have had repeatability. This doesn't change anything.
| Quote: |
RADAR is a great machine. I used the Otari RADAR 1 on a long project in '98 and bought 2 IZ RADARs for the followup project in 2000. I am no stranger to the format. |
I am not trying to prove or disprove that Radar is a great machine. That is a subjective analysis that must be made by the user, which includes paramaters that go far beyond sound quality. The Radar is there to prove this isn't a "digital issue," an argument that is consistently brought up when I discuss this problem. The Radar does not play back, with absolute accuracy, the 2" transfer. I don't know a digital multitrack in the world that could. What the Radar does, is illustrate a digital transfer from an analog source, can be "reasonably close." For some it might not be close enough, but there will always be some level of subjectivity to all this. After all, those who have a particular disdain for low-end, could argue that the HD sounds better after the transfer.
Depsite some level of subjecctivity, I am confident that the amount of destruction I have discovered, will be unacceptable to the community at large.
| Quote: |
Like it or not Pro Tools and the rest are here to stay. |
I don't like or dislike Pro Tools. I have stated on many, many occasions, I have and do use the platform. I have been firm that a GREAT record can be made on the platform. Neither one of these statements has anything to do with the issue at hand. A loss of low-end when making a simple transfer from analog to HD. My goal and purpose here, is to force Digidesign to fix a glaring and inexcusable problem. We as a community have an obligation to force manufacturers to keep their gear up to spec.
Mixerman
Post by: djui5 on November 06, 2005, 03:32:56 PM
192's have an A and B calibration level. So you can easily switch between the 2.
Set A for -18 and B for -24
Post by: Mixerman on November 06, 2005, 04:36:41 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 12:10 | ||||
I have no presupposition that the test will go either way. It's a test. Mixerman is not doing this test. This is being done by others. We can agree to disagree but I will still stick to the presupposition that people doing the testing should be going in with an open mind. To presuppose that just because Mixerman said it's so therefore makes it likely is interesting in that he has made a side career in bashing the format. Pretty simple really. |
You cannot disprove something that you do not assume to be true in the first place.
This is not a test. It is an effort at either disproving a previous test or to show repeatability of it.
You are accusing me of "bashing" a product, but I am defying an independant group to "disprove" my findings. How is that bashing?
I have ceratinly been critical of the product and, more importantly, the manufacturer. But I have always laid out clear and concise arguments for my statements of both fact and opinion, and I have always encouraged others to investigate my claims on their own. Expressing a well-informed and well grounded opinion based on years of experience, can hardly be represented as "bashing."
Mixerman
Post by: rnicklaus on November 06, 2005, 04:55:06 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 13:36 | ||||||
You cannot disprove something that you do not assume to be true in the first place. This is not a test. It is an effort at either disproving a previous test or showing repeatability of it. You are accusing me of "bashing" a product, but I am defying an independant group to "disprove" my findings. How is that bashing? I have ceratinly been critical of the product and, more importantly, the manufacturer. But I have always laid out clear and concise arguments for my statements of both fact and opinion, and I have always encouraged others to investigate my claims on their own. Expressing a well-informed and well grounded opinion based on years of experience can hardly be represented as "bashing." Mixerman |
Of course this is a test.
Let's however call this what it is. When I read the mixerman diaries that were posted online and read your forum, there is plenty of "bashing" going on IMHO. This is my word, not yours.
I can change bash to comically critical if the word bash came off harsh to you.
My point was more along the lines of someone isn't going to ask Ralph Nadar to judge the seat quality of the Corvair or how long the headlights last on a Pinto.
Post by: Mixerman on November 06, 2005, 05:12:52 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 13:55 |
My point was more along the lines of someone isn't going to ask Ralph Nadar to judge the seat quality of the Corvair or how long the headlights last on a Pinto. |
But I'm not the one judging this. I will be 2200 miles away when this is going down. So, you're point is lost on me.
| Quote: |
I can change bash to comically critical if the word bash came off harsh to you. |
Not harsh. Innaccurate.
And comically critical? I have been comically critical about far more than just Alsihad. My use of the terms Alsihah (one who loves Alsihad) and Luddite (one who loves 2") is meant to poke fun at our tendencies as humans to draw hard and firm lines on our positions based purely on our emotional and monetary investments. The fact that so many people take umbrage to these terms, only makes it all the funnier.
Personally, I think I've been comically critical about life in general. The fact that I prefer to use satire to make my point, only illustrates my disdain for dry and uninteresting discussion. It hardly proves me an unworthy source of information, and it hardly dismantles my credibility to make an evaluation of a transfer.
BTW: I do believe Ralph Nader was right about many of the issues that he brought to light. Like those pesky seatbelts, for instance.
Ahem.
Mixerman
Post by: rnicklaus on November 06, 2005, 05:51:49 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 14:12 | ||||
But I'm not the one judging this. I will be 2200 miles away when this is going down. So, you're point is lost on me.
Not harsh. Innaccurate. And comically critical? I have been comically critical about far more than just Alsihad. My use of the terms Alsihah (one who loves Alsihad) and Luddite (one who loves 2") is meant to poke fun at our tendencies as humans to draw hard and firm lines on our positions based purely on our emotional and monetary investments. The fact that so many people take umbrage to these terms, only makes it all the funnier. Personally, I think I've been comically critical about life in general. The fact that I prefer to use satire to make my point, only illustrates my disdain for dry and uninteresting discussion. It hardly proves me an unworthy source of information, and it hardly dismantles my credibility to make an evaluation of a transfer. BTW: I do believe Ralph Nader was right about many of the issues that he brought to light. Like those pesky seatbelts, for instance. Ahem. Mixerman |
I knew when I brought the Ralph Nadar example into this what the response would be.
Mixerman, I have never posted that that you have no credibility. This is about presupposition, not Mixerman.
People may not realize that we know each other and I like your work. This is just discussion.
Going back to Ralph Nadar, even if he was right about the Corvair and the Pinto, the suppliers of the upholstery and headlights would not want him testing them while on those cars.
Post by: The Resonater on November 06, 2005, 07:04:07 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 12:14 | ||
Yes, he does... and he may very well be 1000% correct... does that mean we shouldn't experiment? Take one learned man's statement as "gospel truth" and move on?]. |
No, I totally support you looking at it from both directions. I was more thinking about the industry wide "presumption" that external clocks are likely to make an improvement over lesser grade internal clocks. I mean, in general, don't we typically presume this? I know I have. Yet, Dan's argument is likely coming from a true feeling that this is typically NOT the case...that clocks of most any quality will almost always run *better* driven internally. I was just throwing it out there to say that not everyone expects to hear improvements when convertors are clocked externally. But I agree that both approaches should be exercised if possible.
Carry on...
Post by: The Resonater on November 06, 2005, 07:26:16 PM
Persupposition or not, I think it's great that the tests will be run, and I will be very much interested in hearing the results. At this point, I doubt that I'll be surprised by any outcome. I'll just be glad to hear the tests.
Post by: kensluiter on November 06, 2005, 11:55:47 PM
Refresh my memory, Mixerman.
When you were doing the transfers that led you to your original hypothesis, was the HD system SMPTE synced to the 2 " machine via Microlynx, USD, SYNC I/O? or were the 192's running on their own internal clock?
Just curious!
Also to defend my earlier suggestion of printing the mixes back into the 192's:
As it stands, if you use the Lavrys to print the mixes thru, only the people standing in the control room will have the oppurtunity to listen to the PT HD playback thru the console while involving only ONE clock source.
Anyone who was not in attendance who listens to a CD, MP3, or whatever, will not be able to make a fair judgement because that playback will involve TWO seperate digital clocks.
Here's an analogy:
I'm no video expert but, if you were to playback a video tape @ 29.97 fps on a video monitor, and then use a video camera to record (thru a lens) the monitor; even though both the video playback deck and the video camera are operating @ 29.97 fps, they are not in sync and therefore the image will "roll" or at least the camera will not record the same image that someone who was standing in front of the monitor would see.
If you were to resolve both the video playback and the camera to the same clock that supplies the 29.97 fps; the image would not roll. I believe this is what happens when audio involves 2 clocks.
Now back to audio:
Obviously I would never ,in general practice, resolve the Lavry's to the 192's; but for this experiment I would.
Why? If you don't, then the 2 track recording of the 2" playback will involve one clock, and the PT HD playback will involve two. I think this gives the 2" playback an unfair advantage.
Here's another thought,
Regardless of whether it's PT vs. 2" or whatever, a copy will never, ever sound as good as the original! Never!
It doesn't matter if your transferring 24 track 2" to PT, or 24 track 2" to another 24 track 2", why would the copy ever stand up to the original in any situation? It seems like a lot of effort to prove the safety copy doesn't sound quite like the master!
Now if I understand Mixerman correctly, his perceived -6 db @ 50Hz really had nothing to do w/ the tape playback. If there is a problem w/ the 192 converters first, run a test tone @ 50 Hz thru the converter @ unity gain to see if there's any loss.
I know that there could be an arguement that a test tone is not dynamic, like music.
In that case, why not prgram a drum machine and compare the output of the drum machine going into a console fader w/ the same signal (level-matched , of course) going thru the 192's?
I've never done formal testing, but back when I did more "programming/MIDI" type work; It was common to work on a track w/ just MIDI modules patched into the console. When it came time to print it to either 2" or PT, I always noticed, and accepted that the playback thru the tape machine or PT output never, ever sounded as fat, or deep as the module itself.
This has been going on long before PT HD.
My 2 cents!
Ken Sluiter
Post by: Mixerman on November 07, 2005, 03:19:52 AM
| kensluiter wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 20:55 |
By the way, Refresh my memory, Mixerman. When you were doing the transfers that led you to your original hypothesis, was the HD system SMPTE synced to the 2 " machine via Microlynx, USD, SYNC I/O? or were the 192's running on their own internal clock? |
No SMPTE sync.
Mixerman
Post by: electrical on November 07, 2005, 04:07:13 AM
| RKrizman wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 18:58 |
Keep in mind also that it's not just a question of digital overs. If you slam the analog electronics too hard and they harsh out there is no fuzzy tape saturation to mitigate the blow. |
I don't know what this "fuzzy tape saturation" thing is, and I'm betting you don't either.
I do know that any piece of equipment that can't handle a nominal +4 signal with better than 16dB of headroom shouldn't be allowed in a recording studio. The analog parts of the converter are seeing the same level regardless of their headroom settings, and if they can't handle +4, then they don't belong in a studio.
Post by: electrical on November 07, 2005, 04:14:35 AM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 15:10 |
We can agree to disagree but I will still stick to the presupposition that people doing the testing should be going in with an open mind. |
I have a completely open mind on the subject. I have no interest in ever using Pro Tools, RADAR or any other equivalent beast, so I do not care in the least which one proves better in our test.
I would be happy to hear for myself that the Pro Tools transfer sounded as good as playing back through a piece of wire. Because then I already have a piece of wire I can use instead, and I still don't need Pro Tools.
I do not have a position on what Pro Tools "sounds" like, because I don't need to use it. I am going to the test to provide a source tape, to help out with the execution, and because there is a consensus that we will play poker all night afterward.
Post by: Fletcher on November 07, 2005, 08:01:32 AM
| kensluiter wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 23:55 |
By the way, Refresh my memory, Mixerman. When you were doing the transfers that led you to your original hypothesis, was the HD system SMPTE synced to the 2 " machine via Microlynx, USD, SYNC I/O? or were the 192's running on their own internal clock? |
Okely dokely... what we have here is a misunderstanding of clocking v. syncing.
Clocking is the clock in the converter telling the converter when to take a sample of the audio... sync is when you get two machines to run at the same time.
The clock that controls a digital audio converter device has nothing to do with the sync capability to another machine, that clock's only function is to tell the sampler when to sample.
External clocks can also be used to tell the sampler in a converter when to sample. However, you can NOT use a lynx or micro-lynx, USD, etc. to control a converters clock stability no more than you could use a Big Ben to lock two machines.
These are entirely different events that are entirely unrelated.
| Quote: |
Also to defend my earlier suggestion of printing the mixes back into the 192's: As it stands, if you use the Lavrys to print the mixes thru, only the people standing in the control room will have the oppurtunity to listen to the PT HD playback thru the console while involving only ONE clock source. Anyone who was not in attendance who listens to a CD, MP3, or whatever, will not be able to make a fair judgement because that playback will involve TWO seperate digital clocks. Here's an analogy: I'm no video expert but, if you were to playback a video tape @ 29.97 fps on a video monitor, and then use a video camera to record (thru a lens) the monitor; even though both the video playback deck and the video camera are operating @ 29.97 fps, they are not in sync and therefore the image will "roll" or at least the camera will not record the same image that someone who was standing in front of the monitor would see. If you were to resolve both the video playback and the camera to the same clock that supplies the 29.97 fps; the image would not roll. I believe this is what happens when audio involves 2 clocks. Now back to audio: Obviously I would never ,in general practice, resolve the Lavry's to the 192's; but for this experiment I would. Why? If you don't, then the 2 track recording of the 2" playback will involve one clock, and the PT HD playback will involve two. I think this gives the 2" playback an unfair advantage. |
The premise of this test is that all will be mixed and monitored through an analog desk... then recorded. The signal at the output of the desk is analog at the time of conversion and recording of the mix. All devices will have the same process attached to the end of the chain... in other words, the device employed to record the balances will be from a neutral manufacturer found acceptable to all parties involved with the test. While I'm sure a debate could be made for Lavry converters over Prism converters or Weiss converters or whatever, the fact of the matter is that the studio owns a set of Prism converters and these have been deemed acceptable by the participants.
All of the digital reproductions will incur two levels of conversion, a neutral system will be employed to record the results... therefor the end storage medium/conversion process is a constant. The more neutral constants you have in the chain the more the single variable [multi-track digital storage device] will be the ONLY variable in the process.
Net result? With only one variable, there can only be one aspect of the process that will make a difference.
| Quote: |
Here's another thought, Regardless of whether it's PT vs. 2" or whatever, a copy will never, ever sound as good as the original! Never! It doesn't matter if your transferring 24 track 2" to PT, or 24 track 2" to another 24 track 2", why would the copy ever stand up to the original in any situation? It seems like a lot of effort to prove the safety copy doesn't sound quite like the master! |
Right. The idea is to see/hear [smell/feel] how much damage is caused by any storage format to which the signal is copied. In other words... does PT significantly alter the audio when recorded from a constant source or doesn't it? MM said it does, this has been a point of contention for many a moon, his testing methodology and results have been the subject of many questions and speculation for quite a while... so the idea here is to try to lay this to rest one way or the other.
| Quote: |
Now if I understand Mixerman correctly, his perceived -6 db @ 50Hz really had nothing to do w/ the tape playback. If there is a problem w/ the 192 converters first, run a test tone @ 50 Hz thru the converter @ unity gain to see if there's any loss. |
Try to keep up... we're past 'test tones'. You can measure 'test tones' all day long with no relevance to audio. You have other factors involved from the "current on demand" capabilities of the unit's power supply [which will not be nearly as taxed with a 'test tone' as with complex audio], you have issues of phase and filtering which can not be addressed with a single test tone.
This is one I'm getting seriously tired of repeating... please let's not visit the "test tone" idea again.
MM's statement was a figurative aural perception, not science, not quantifiable, not necessarily fact nor accurate. This has been established. As an engineer he stated that it sounded to him like it was ___ db down at ____Hz... this was not stated as measurable gospel truth from the mountaintop.
| Quote: |
I know that there could be an arguement that a test tone is not dynamic, like music. In that case, why not prgram a drum machine and compare the output of the drum machine going into a console fader w/ the same signal (level-matched , of course) going thru the 192's? I've never done formal testing, but back when I did more "programming/MIDI" type work; It was common to work on a track w/ just MIDI modules patched into the console. When it came time to print it to either 2" or PT, I always noticed, and accepted that the playback thru the tape machine or PT output never, ever sounded as fat, or deep as the module itself. This has been going on long before PT HD. |
OK... I'm seeing the problem here... you're missing the premise of the test.
We are using a "drum machine"... except that it's not a machine and it happens to live on a piece of 2" tape.
The analog audio source is just that... a source. It is a repeatable source. One can get the EXACT same sounds and performance from a collection of musicians with the push of a button... much like a drum machine but hopefully no where near as annoying to listen to for a full day of repetetive actions.
We are not trying to establish if any of the digital copies sound better than the source, we're trying to establish what, if any, digital copies are close to the source or at least not too repugnant.
Your observation of "I always noticed, and accepted that the playback thru the tape machine or PT output never, ever sounded as fat, or deep as the module itself." is the assertation we are looking to confirm... and while we're in the neighborhood... we might as well see if any of the other potential formats are more or less musical than P-T.
This is the premise... this is not an "analog vs. digital" debate [as we are going to concede audio superiority to analog], this is to try to observe how much damage is being done in the digital recording process and if there is any way to minimize the bleeding.
Post by: Fletcher on November 07, 2005, 08:05:54 AM
| electrical wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 04:07 |
I do know that any piece of equipment that can't handle a nominal +4 signal with better than 16dB of headroom shouldn't be allowed in a recording studio. The analog parts of the converter are seeing the same level regardless of their headroom settings, and if they can't handle +4, then they don't belong in a studio. |
The "headroom" setting is db below 0dbfs, which comes after the analog electronics. I don't believe you will find any of these machines that can not handle a basic 16db>+4dbu... that is not the question with the headroom debate... the headroom debate stems from Bob O's contention that these machines sound different when pushed to different internal headroom standards.
The audio entering these machines will be at a constant level.
FWIW, I feel that anything that does not have a basic, minimum internal headroom spec of +22 is at best semi-pro crap... but that's just me being a snot [with a desk that can do +32 at the output].
Post by: compasspnt on November 07, 2005, 10:49:44 AM
Post by: Fibes on November 07, 2005, 10:58:32 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 10:49 |
Just for interest (personally not having read everything, everywhere), what is the origination of the term "Alsihad?" |
It's a well established name of Shriners here in the South east United States. Quite frequently the junk store around the corner from the shop has the full dress/hat/gloves/whatever on sale.
As to how it relates to digital audio is more Mixerman's idea. It's been so long I've forgotten the exact reasoning behind it but basically it's a replacement name so one doesn't have to use the real name (Pro-Tools. There are pseudonyms for other pieaces of kit related to the Digi-design empire too.
I'm glad the different levels will be tested.
Post by: malice on November 07, 2005, 12:17:08 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 16:49 |
Just for interest (personally not having read everything, everywhere), what is the origination of the term "Alsihad?" |
Because it's "all he had" ...
You gotta read the book
I know there is another story involving Fletcher and a Fez ...
malice
Post by: blairl on November 07, 2005, 01:05:28 PM
It is apparent that at least some of the expert listeners going into this testing session will be biased one way or another. I am aware that there is a hypothesis which is the reason for the test. Some in attendance will be expecting that hypothesis to be confirmed and some will expect the hypothesis to be disproved. Everyone present will see the tape and interfaces being aligned and will witness the actual transfers from tape to the different digital media. At this point there may be some opinions being formed and it may or may not be blatantly obvious that there is or isn't a problem with the transfer through the 192 I|O's.
If after the transfers are completed there isn't a unanimous opinion on the low frequency problem or lack thereof, I would suggest that some kind of a blind listening test of the recorded results be performed. You would need to figure out how best to do this under the circumstances, but I would at least suggest that a third party, poker faced, non expert listener administer the test. If whoever operating the equipment announces verbally or non verbally, "OK everyone, we are now listening to the 192 I|O," there may be a problem with confirmation bias creeping in. Who knows, maybe everyone in attendance will agree during the transfer process that there is or isn't a problem. I think you should consider a blind listening test just in case.
Post by: rnicklaus on November 07, 2005, 01:36:27 PM
The way Mixerman describes his experience on the issue, this is not going to be a slight difference that is going to need blind testing. The bottom will be there or it won't - the talk of bottom octave or 6 db down is not subtle.
My stated issue re presupposition only comes from the set up and execution of the test.
The analog portion of the test is going to be amazing. A renowned, respected engineer/producer bringing a tape recorded on what many feel is the ultimate analog 2" set up, 2" 16 track.
Anyone who has listened to Mr Albini's work and read his views on recording can know that this will be top notch. No question.
As long as someone present understands Pro Tools set up as well as Fletcher and Mr Albini understand analog set up, this will be great.
This is not to suggest that either of these gentleman lack any digital skills whatsoever, just that an equal counterpart in pro tools interfacing will hopefully be there.
Once all is set up and transferred, this should not be a tough call for the people listening. Is the bottom octave there? Is 60Hz down 6DB? BTW, nobody should hold these descriptions as anything other than general.
If it is the converters or power supply, this could/should be heard just by playing the 2" through PT in input. The problem should show up at that stage alone. It's either "What happened to the bottom end?" or "Yep, that's the sound of the tape."
Post by: malice on November 07, 2005, 01:58:06 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 19:36 |
If it is the converters or power supply, this could/should be heard just by playing the 2" through PT in input. The problem should show up at that stage alone. It's either "What happened to the bottom end?" or "Yep, that's the sound of the tape." |
I must admit you have a point.
Fletcher, we could make a pass with PT (Alsihad for Terry) in input just to check that.
This is more and more interesting
malice
Post by: Mixerman on November 07, 2005, 02:50:14 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 07:49 |
Just for interest (personally not having read everything, everywhere), what is the origination of the term "Alsihad?" |
Alsihah is the name of a Shriner's Temple in Georgia. The name Alsihad (pronounced AL-see-hod) is derived from that, although many are convinced that it was a word designed to be misread "All's I had." That may or may not be the case, but if it is, then it was probably a gift from Fletcher's subconscience, as he blurted out the word when I proposed the idea of coming up with my own name for the platform. What he meant to blurt out was Alsihah, the word emblazoned on a Fez in his possession.
Alsihah has since come to mean a user of Alsihad. Luddite is a user of 2". And a Jedi of either, is an expert at their chosen recording device.
Mixerman
Post by: Fibes on November 07, 2005, 03:19:46 PM
Macon Georgia.
Post by: compasspnt on November 07, 2005, 03:37:09 PM
Let the testing begin!
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 07, 2005, 04:07:40 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 07:05 |
...The "headroom" setting is db below 0dbfs, which comes after the analog electronics. I don't believe you will find any of these machines that can not handle a basic 16db>+4dbu... that is not the question with the headroom debate... the headroom debate stems from Bob O's contention that these machines sound different when pushed to different internal headroom standards... |
My contention is that it is an ANALOG dynamic headroom issue in the converters and/or in common equipment driving them or being driven by them. The more channels that are being pushed by low frequency material, the more challenging it will be to the power supplies.
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 07, 2005, 05:10:41 PM
| blairl wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 18:05 |
I think that the expert listeners participating in this test should at least be aware of this: link to Confirmation Bias, and that there should be some kind of blind test to help mitigate the effects. It is apparent that at least some of the expert listeners going into this testing session will be biased one way or another. I am aware that there is a hypothesis which is the reason for the test. Some in attendance will be expecting that hypothesis to be confirmed and some will expect the hypothesis to be disproved. Everyone present will see the tape and interfaces being aligned and will witness the actual transfers from tape to the different digital media. At this point there may be some opinions being formed and it may or may not be blatantly obvious that there is or isn't a problem with the transfer through the 192 I|O's. If after the transfers are completed there isn't a unanimous opinion on the low frequency problem or lack thereof, I would suggest that some kind of a blind listening test of the recorded results be performed. You would need to figure out how best to do this under the circumstances, but I would at least suggest that a third party, poker faced, non expert listener administer the test. If whoever operating the equipment announces verbally or non verbally, "OK everyone, we are now listening to the 192 I|O," there may be a problem with confirmation bias creeping in. Who knows, maybe everyone in attendance will agree during the transfer process that there is or isn't a problem. I think you should consider a blind listening test just in case. |
I forget, but aren't the 2-track passes going be made available to the public? If that's the case, you can run your own blind test. Yes, it's a leap of faith that the test will conducted impartially, but since the methodology is posted (and being haggled over) beforehand, we all know how it's going to go down.
At this point, I like Mixerman's proposal to keep it simple. Start with one operating level, transfer to PT and Radar, listen, and print. Bass problem yes or no. Then move on to whatever: a different operating level, external clock, different sampling rate, external converters.
If you guys want to wear lab coats, that's your business.
Cheers,
Carter William Humphrey
Post by: RKrizman on November 07, 2005, 05:12:25 PM
| kensluiter wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 23:55 |
Here's an analogy: I'm no video expert but, if you were to playback a video tape @ 29.97 fps on a video monitor, and then use a video camera to record (thru a lens) the monitor; even though both the video playback deck and the video camera are operating @ 29.97 fps, they are not in sync and therefore the image will "roll" or at least the camera will not record the same image that someone who was standing in front of the monitor would see. If you were to resolve both the video playback and the camera to the same clock that supplies the 29.97 fps; the image would not roll. I believe this is what happens when audio involves 2 clocks. |
Ken, this analogy is not applicable. The second donverter will not see some sort of stair-stepped or discontinuous waveform, it will see a smooth analog signal reconstructed from digital.
-R
Post by: RKrizman on November 07, 2005, 05:19:27 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 13:36 |
Once all is set up and transferred, this should not be a tough call for the people listening. Is the bottom octave there? Is 60Hz down 6DB? |
This must be meant in a very general sense because this is two different things, I think. I mean, isn't the "bottom octave" 20 - 40 hz ? The effect of that only being lopped off would be different than also hearing 60 hz down 6 db. Surely Mixerman is not continuing to maintain that the latter is the case.
-R
Post by: rnicklaus on November 07, 2005, 05:27:31 PM
| RKrizman wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 14:19 | ||
This must be meant in a very general sense because this is two different things, I think. I mean, isn't the "bottom octave" 20 - 40 hz ? The effect of that only being lopped off would be different than also hearing 60 hz down 6 db. Surely Mixerman is not continuing to maintain that the latter is the case. -R |
I don't believe his original claim was measured but just a general "feel" for what he heard. The point is made with the claim - meaning it isn't subtle no matter what the frequency, exact drop or filter.
Post by: RKrizman on November 07, 2005, 05:34:06 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 13:15 | ||||
That is precisely the presupposition that should be made. |
That's the presupposition you're making based on your experience. Based on my own experience transferring from tape I'm presupposing that there will be no glaring problem in the low end.
No hedging here, and if I'm wrong I'll be better off for it.
-R
Post by: RKrizman on November 07, 2005, 05:37:14 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 16:36 |
I have ceratinly been critical of the product and, more importantly, the manufacturer. But I have always laid out clear and concise arguments for my statements of both fact and opinion, and I have always encouraged others to investigate my claims on their own. Expressing a well-informed and well grounded opinion based on years of experience, can hardly be represented as "bashing." Mixerman |
You've been nothing but fair and balanced.
-R
Post by: RKrizman on November 07, 2005, 05:45:30 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 16:36 |
You cannot disprove something that you do not assume to be true in the first place. |
You can certainly disprove something that someone else assumes to be true.
But yes, if somebody somewhere doesn't think that something is the case then there's certainly no reason to disprove it.
-R
Post by: compasspnt on November 07, 2005, 05:50:23 PM
Post by: RKrizman on November 07, 2005, 05:52:55 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 15:13 |
Presupposing I am right gives a purpose for the test in the first place. There have been claims that this is merely a converter shootout. This is NOT a converter shootout. This is an attempt to disprove my claims, that have been supported by two other independant and respectable sources, Slipperman and Bob Ohlsson. The claim being: There is a significant and unacceptable loss of low-end when a transfer is made from 2" to HD, a loss that does not occur in all digital mutitrack machines. Repeatability offers the comunity a way of making the theory more concise and accurate. When I first discovered the problem, it was a hypothesis. Since Slipperman and Bob Olhsson have also discovered the problem independently of me, my hypothesis becomes a theory. |
For the record, here's what Bob O had to say:
<<The challenge is that we are dealing with a system. How easy is the console for the tape machine to drive vs. the 192 and what is the overload point of the tape returns? Different consoles and tape machines are likely to produce different results. I've experienced a particular console (MCI 500) where the low frequency problem was obvious and another particular console (SSL 9K) where it wasn't>>
Is this what your theory says, that sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't?
-R
Post by: Ron Steele on November 07, 2005, 06:22:32 PM
deli platter, where you make your own sandwich?
or deli sandwich trey?
also, as for a presupposition, should we all listen at the same time or separately?
we could have a studio assistant operate the deck and protools and keep a score card.
any thoughts on this doing it this way?
Post by: Slipperman on November 07, 2005, 07:21:12 PM
If I'm imagining all this, or doing something wrong which is making it occur.... I'd sure as hell like to know about it.
We make a fairly bewildering number of records every year using the 'track to 2" - dupe and mix from DAW' methodology. This is because I love the sound of rock and roll stuff on 2"(and my clients seem to concur), but the practical aspects of production delivery demand that I mix from DAW...
If it's deemed a truly "loss-less process" by the assembled mob, or even if it can be done in a fashion which will minimize the losses I'm so convinced I'm hearing and I can embrace and accomodate those adustments to my methods...
I'm thinking I'll spend a short time feeling kinda embarrassed.
And a long time feeling kinda relieved.
Best regards to all,
And good luck.
SM.
Post by: RKrizman on November 08, 2005, 12:55:05 AM
| Slipperman wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 19:21 |
If it's deemed a truly "loss-less process" by the assembled mob, or even if it can be done in a fashion which will minimize the losses I'm so convinced I'm hearing and I can embrace and accomodate those adustments to my methods... . |
Well the question isn't whether it's a loss-less process. I don't think anyone's claiming that it is. The question is where does the loss occur. My guess is that the test will show that looking at the bottom octave is not the answer.
-R
Post by: Mixerman on November 08, 2005, 03:16:49 AM
| RKrizman wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 21:55 | ||
Well the question isn't whether it's a loss-less process. I don't think anyone's claiming that it is. The question is where does the loss occur. My guess is that the test will show that looking at the bottom octave is not the answer. -R |
| Slipperman wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 15:21 Posted on Mixerman's forum |
Ahh... Ya know Fibes... I hate getting embroiled in this stuff... I really do... But. There's those things ya discuss freely when ya talk to yer AE chums in the course of a day or weeks events.. Ya know.... What they used to call the "Bulkhead Scuttlebutt" in the US Navy. Anyhoo. As you know, we do literally HUNDREDS of song transfers per year from 2" to DAW. Most on the MOTU 192HD's. A handful of projects on the Digi HD192's. A couple on the old 888/24's.... and the occasional oddball duped at another shop using something else like RADAR or whatnot. When we make these transfers... we usually aren't really trying to compare ANYTHING from a sonics standpoint. We became resigned to our fate in that respect quite a while ago.... We are just trying to get our material from the medium we prefer to track to(2").... to the medium we pretty much HAVE to mix from(DAW)....... whether we like it or not sonically. Personally.... I don't. Like it sonically. I have rarely been in the presence of another individual during the course of one of these transfers who couldn't HEAR a difference in the 2 mediums. Believe me... I'm usually NOT going out of my way to POINT IT THE FUCK OUT. But when you get in a situation where the band has been tracking on 2" for an extended period in the same control room. Drummers and bass players who have been rocking to playback on the mains over and over for weeks or even months will almost ALWAYS say something. And lots of times what they have to say is NOT encouraging. Like... "Dude... what happened to the fucking kick drum.... it sounds papery now...." Or my favorite from the bass player. "Whoa.... Is that the just the DI...?" On the other hand: I HAVE had the occasional rare situations where some guys PREFERRED the transfers to the 2"!!! Great. Whatever. My point is..... Nobody who seems to give even a cursory nod to the "sonics aspect" in a recording scenario with me in the last 5 years or so of this shit is saying it SOUNDS THE SAME. Once again.... I really don't give a fuck at the end of the day. I'm a practical guy and practicality dictates that I'll be transferring all my shit into DAW's via SOME kinda A/D's... So I just DEAL with it. But Dude. It exists. The ONLY place it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned is on the internet. Go figure. Best regards and wishes, SM. |
Bass players asking if the PT playback is the di. Drummers wondering what happened to the kik.
Gee. Sounds like low-end loss to me.
But hey, that's what tests are for, right?
Mixerman
Post by: maxdimario on November 08, 2005, 05:28:43 AM
I have the impression that the problem would be evident from an engineering point of view.
If anyone has some tech info on the said converters I'd appreciate seeing it.
a lot of converters have very expensive digital chips, but the analog section is badly designed and built of cheap components.
this may be a combination of reducing size (bad), reducing cost(bad), enginnering a circuit that will give excellent thd noise and freq. specs (easy as pie)
the hard and expensive thing to do is to engineer an analog section which will reproduce musical signals effectively AND have great specs.
Expect an increase in size and cost, though
Post by: Fletcher on November 08, 2005, 10:56:59 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 17:50 |
Is there any reason to also transfer the programme to yet another 2" 16 or 24, to see what the difference is there, compared to the dig? Or is this just too much already...? |
Too much already... at least in my opinion it's too much already... other's mileage may vary.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 08, 2005, 11:17:56 AM
| maxdimario wrote on Tue, 08 November 2005 04:28 |
I would like to see the schematics of the analog driver circuit, and PSU rails. |
Important to understand that any converter amounts to a radio transmitter and a low level audio amplifier on the very same circuit board. Most use seperate analog and digital supplies but there are still a host of ways that an analog stage inside a converter could have undetected RFI issues stressing the power supply.
Post by: djui5 on November 08, 2005, 11:42:01 AM
| Quote: |
electrical wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 16:09 Having just metered some tapes, I am confident we will have no overs at 0vu= -18dBfs. Not so confident about -16dBfs. Here's what I propose: I line the tape machine up. We play the 1kHz tone from each track through the desk and trim the desk inputs so the insert points read 0vu on a digital meter (which I can bring if necessary). Next, we set the input on the PT converters to -18dBfs, patch the tape machine into the PT inputs and record the tones and program on PT. Next we patch the PT outputs into the same channels the tape machine was on. Next, we meter the insert ponts and trim the output of the PT converters to match the 1kHz tone to 0vu on the meter. Finally, we listen to the music on the two. |
I like the calibration sequence. If doing dual levels, you could set the A and B levels simultaneously.
192's clocked internally. This is a PT's debate, not a clocking debate. You could do different clocks for kicks if you want, but to prove Mixerman's point there is no need to. I'm also not sure that doing 2 different input calibration settings is entirely necessary either. It's possible that the bass response at -24 could be slightly different than at -18 though, so maybe you should.
I'd like to see a 44.1 and 88.2K/96K test done. I feel it is necessary for the most accurate results.
Also you should patch directly out of the tape machine into the 192's, not through a patchbay.
If different clocks are used, they need to be used for recording and playback for the most accurate results. Consistency is key in a situation like this.
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 08, 2005, 03:24:57 PM
You can follow the whole ordeal by reading the DUC saga:
http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=13284 3&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1
http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=13669 8&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1
http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=13600 8&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1
http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=12936 6&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1
-------------------
Anyhow.. good luck... I hope you have a Pro Tools expert on hand as well to ensure credibility for the Pro Tools users like myself who have done thousands of analog to HD transfers and never had a low end issue. My girlfriend also runs one of the main analog based Los Angeles (rock) recording studios and practically every session includes transfers from 800 or 827 to Pro Tools... and I haven't heard of a single instance of a low frequency transfer issue.
Rail
Post by: Eric Rudd on November 08, 2005, 03:50:25 PM
| RKrizman wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 22:45 |
But yes, if somebody somewhere doesn't think that something is the case then there's certainly no reason to disprove it. -R |
Good grief...is that sentence a head-spinner.
Eric
Post by: rnicklaus on November 08, 2005, 09:29:27 PM
This time it seems to be much more in control.
There seems to still be a bit the Pro Tools VS RADAR thing going on.
Interesting in that Pro Tools and RADAR are such different machines.
It will be interesting to get opinions of the differences in converters of the units but even if the RADAR blows away the Pro Tools converters, it's not a replacement for Pro Tools or other DAWs. Great machine though.
Post by: Curve Dominant on November 09, 2005, 01:02:55 AM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 02:29 |
There seems to still be a bit the Pro Tools VS RADAR thing going on. |
The big surprise is how long it took someone to point that out.
The moderator of this forum is a RADAR vendor, and has professed to a bias against PT.
Doesn't bode well for an unbiassed execution of the methodology, nor the assesment of the results, does it?
I propose Fletcher recuse himself from the testing proceedings, on the grounds that:
1) Fletcher has already professed a bias against PT
2) Fletcher is a vendor for a product (RADAR) which is in direct competition with PT.
Can I get a witness?
Post by: malice on November 09, 2005, 02:13:03 AM
| Curve Dominant wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 07:02 | ||
The big surprise is how long it took someone to point that out. The moderator of this forum is a RADAR vendor, and has professed to a bias against PT. Doesn't bode well for an unbiassed execution of the methodology, nor the assesment of the results, does it? I propose Fletcher recuse himself from the testing proceedings, on the grounds that: 1) Fletcher has already professed a bias against PT 2) Fletcher is a vendor for a product (RADAR) which is in direct competition with PT. Can I get a witness? |
Ganon should then recuse himself from being employed by Digidesign. Fletcher should be out, so is Steve, for being an analog integrist. May be we should dissmissed Ron Steele as he had a clear beef with Mixerman (sorry Ron, I know we are cool now, but I needed this to make my point with this dumbass)
Who is going to conduct the test ?
You ?
THAT would be a wankfest
malice
Post by: Mixerman on November 09, 2005, 02:52:10 AM
| Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Tue, 08 November 2005 12:24 |
Anyhow.. good luck... I hope you have a Pro Tools expert on hand as well to ensure credibility for the Pro Tools users like myself |
^Hedging, ^hedging, ^hedging.
You have to be kidding! It requires an expert to do a transfer?
I mean, why is it that a transfer into Pro Tools requires an expert in order to do it right? But a transfer into Radar is somehow bulletproof? I mean, according to Rail, I (and many of my friends) don't have the expertise to properly transfer a tape into Pro Tools. Yet somehow, I manage to get this sort of complex transfer right every time I go into Radar. Remarkable.
I mean, doesn't that strike you all a bit odd? That you need to be some kind of expert to make an analog to digital transfer, aside from knowing how to do a transfer from an analog device into a digital device?
| Curve Dominant wrote on Tue, 08 November 2005 22:02 | ||
The big surprise is how long it took someone to point that out. The moderator of this forum is a RADAR vendor, and has professed to a bias against PT. |
^Hedging, ^hedging, ^hedging.
| Quote: |
Doesn't bode well for an unbiassed execution of the methodology, nor the assesment of the results, does it? I propose Fletcher recuse himself from the testing proceedings, on the grounds that: 1) Fletcher has already professed a bias against PT 2) Fletcher is a vendor for a product (RADAR) which is in direct competition with PT. Can I get a witness? |
^Hedging, ^hedging, ^hedging.
There will be like 20 of 'em, including a representative from Digi. What is Fletcher going to do? Surreptitiously plug the PT leads in half-way? Swap out the pin 2 hot, with pin 3 hot cables during the PT transfer?
Hey everyone! Look over there!
[Swap, Swap, Swap.]
Oh . . . nothing . . .
What are you nine?
Mixerman
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 09, 2005, 04:28:14 AM
| Curve Dominant wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 06:02 | ||
The big surprise is how long it took someone to point that out. The moderator of this forum is a RADAR vendor, and has professed to a bias against PT. Doesn't bode well for an unbiassed execution of the methodology, nor the assesment of the results, does it? I propose Fletcher recuse himself from the testing proceedings, on the grounds that: 1) Fletcher has already professed a bias against PT 2) Fletcher is a vendor for a product (RADAR) which is in direct competition with PT. Can I get a witness? |
What? This is a courtroom now? I like the Law and Order shows as much the next guy, but this not law by any stretch of the imagination. Fletcher "recuse" himself, give me a break. This is a informal test, played out publicly for our education and/or enjoyment. Mixerman has made a claim, Ron Steele has challenged it. Does any of this ring a bell?
RADAR is one of the controls of the test. The subject of the test is Pro Tools. We have a diverse pool of observers (listeners) which includes Fletcher.
-C
Post by: rnicklaus on November 09, 2005, 10:40:14 AM
Can we please not have this turn into the madness that was on the threads on DUC?
Or maybe that's just a diversion? It's own form of hedging?
Mixerman, you can post all day long that you make perfect transfers to RADAR and not to Pro Tools, but that is what this "test" is about.
If everyone blindly believed your claims as truths as you post them to be, there would be no need for this test.
This test is around the corner.
Post by: compasspnt on November 09, 2005, 11:32:58 AM
Surely everyone here is the most interested, at the end of the day, in the best attainable quality. I can not imagine that Fletcher, or Mixerman, or Ron, or Gannon, or any true professional, would "skew" the test results.
Let us just have faith in professional ethics here.
This is, after all, an informal test conducted, at least in part, because of Internet postings.
After the test, you (we) will all be free to resume your (our) current recording techniques. Or change them if desired...
Post by: Mixerman on November 09, 2005, 01:15:56 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 07:40 |
Fletcher shouldn't "recuse" himself from the test. Can we please not have this turn into the madness that was on the threads on DUC? Or maybe that's just a diversion? It's own form of hedging? Mixerman, you can post all day long that you make perfect transfers to RADAR and not to Pro Tools, but that is what this "test" is about. If everyone blindly believed your claims as truths as you post them to be, there would be no need for this test. This test is around the corner. |
I'm not asking everyone to blindly believe my claims. I've never asked for that. I'm suggesting that people stop making up a bunch of lame excuses for explaining in advance why I will be proven right.
The need for expert Alsihah's? Accusations of impartiallity or tampering? Early positioning of argument?
^Hedging, ^hedging, ^hedging.
And diversionary tactics on my part? Ahem. 600 million candle Hollywood searchlights, morelike.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Post by: orbb on November 09, 2005, 01:35:09 PM
Post by: Fibes on November 09, 2005, 02:52:45 PM
Some things come to mind regarding Bob's cpmment about hearing it in one room and not another.
Could it be possible that DC offset snuck in and smeared the whole bottom into nothing?
2" has a rolloff at around 50 but I've always found that to be a pleasing thing. Sure, it ain't 6db but it's there in most instances.
I can say I'm as comfortable with the players involved as I could be. That said, we don't do Pro-Tools at the shop so in essence if Mixerman is right fine, if he is wrong then fine. Either way when the test is complete someone is gonna have a bunch of poker winnings to blow at a strip club. In the end it seems that is the only thing that is truly undisputable.
It still seems there are bigger issues to DAW usage that those of us who use them out of necessity wish the software and hardware guys would address.
I wish there was a way to do an ISDN feed. Yeah...
Post by: jimmyjazz on November 09, 2005, 03:16:46 PM
| Curve Dominant wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 01:02 |
Can I get a witness? |
Can you get real?
Ignore the "test" results if you must. The rest of us are eager to see if these folks can replicate what mixerman, slipperman, et al have claimed about ProTools. I have complete faith that those in attendance will report their results with no chicanery involved; indeed, it never even occured to me to question their integrity. Why do you?
Post by: rnicklaus on November 09, 2005, 03:31:58 PM
| jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 12:16 | ||
Can you get real? Ignore the "test" results if you must. The rest of us are eager to see if these folks can replicate what mixerman, slipperman, et al have claimed about ProTools. I have complete faith that those in attendance will report their results with no chicanery involved; indeed, it never even occured to me to question their integrity. Why do you? |
To be clear, Slipperman claimed "Most on the MOTU 192HD's. A handful of projects on the Digi HD192's."
Let's at least stay real here.
Post by: electrical on November 09, 2005, 03:40:26 PM
| Fibes wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 14:52 |
Could it be possible that DC offset snuck in and smeared the whole bottom into nothing? |
This is impossible with a tranformer-coupled output, and it is practically impossible for all channels of a multitrack to develop the exact same DC-offset fault.
| Quote: |
2" has a rolloff at around 50 but I've always found that to be a pleasing thing. Sure, it ain't 6db but it's there in most instances. |
I see digital guys postulating all the time that "tape" does this- or that to the sound, and they're almost always making a general statement about a specific case they encountered once.
Tape recordings should sound pretty much like the input. That's the only general statement that has any validity. Anything else has to be qualified as to circumstances.
Post by: djui5 on November 09, 2005, 04:06:42 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 11:15 |
The need for expert Alsihah's? Accusations of impartiallity or tampering? Early positioning of argument? |
You wouldn't let Curve Dominant align your tape machine would you? Why let someone who isn't familiar with Pro-Tools calibrate it?
Radar is a different system than Pro-Tools is. It's a stand alone DAW.
Post by: RKrizman on November 09, 2005, 04:13:59 PM
| electrical wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 15:40 |
I see digital guys postulating all the time that "tape" does this- or that to the sound, and they're almost always making a general statement about a specific case they encountered once. |
Yes, that door swings both ways, doesn't it.
-R
Post by: CWHumphrey on November 09, 2005, 04:47:36 PM
| djui5 wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 21:06 | ||
You wouldn't let Curve Dominant align your tape machine would you? Why let someone who isn't familiar with Pro-Tools calibrate it? Radar is a different system than Pro-Tools is. It's a stand alone DAW. |
There will be a representative from Digigdesign there. Does that not work for you?
Post by: Ron Steele on November 09, 2005, 05:06:51 PM
CRC has a highly knowledgeable tech staff, and AE's who work with PT and tape.
Between their staff and Mr.Albini, there should be absolutely no question or concern. Besides, level to tape or digital {pt or radar} is obviously a subjective choice, so what's all the fuss about. Either the bottom goes bye bye or it doesn't.
As for Fletcher, I have only gotten the impression that he just wants to show up and sit
in the listing chair. So what if we transfer to radar to, it is a totally different beast then PT and serves a clear purpose as to why it exists.
This is not brain surgery.
Sorry if I am coming off edgy, I have the worst hangover today.
Post by: Eric Rudd on November 09, 2005, 10:16:09 PM
| Quote: |
This is grossly over-generalized. An ATR124 would be flat to 20Hz at 15ips, and probably flat to 40Hz at 30ips. |
This sounds about right. OWR machines were aligned to 0VU at 50Hz playback. I can't recall if we ever tried lower than 50Hz. I'm sure Bruce Marien did.
On the 2track ATR-100's our standard alignment was +.5db at 50Hz. This wasn't necessarily to "hype" the low end, more that there was about a half db drop at 100Hz that this helped flatten out. I'm dusting off cobwebs here....it' been 11 years since I've worked on the Ampex.
| Quote: |
I see digital guys postulating all the time that "tape" does this- or that to the sound, and they're almost always making a general statement about a specific case they encountered once. Tape recordings should sound pretty much like the input. That's the only general statement that has any validity. Anything else has to be qualified as to circumstances. |
If I experienced a 6db drop at 50Hz I personally would be checking to see if I had single-ended cables, or an ELCO connector not seated properly..or......????
I'm sure there's going to be a difference in low end from PT as compared to 2" as compared to Radar. I did my own personal test about 5 years ago with an MCI and Radar. I tracked a rhythm section to both simultaneously...with time code printed to each. I then locked the two machines and A/B'd between the two. To my ears, the two were VERY similar. However, the 2" had a tiny-er bit more low-lows than did the Radar. Maybe it was the tape compression...maybe it was wishful thinking.
My focus has always been on session management. In other words...how to make the musicians feel comfortable. 2" multitrack rarely has let me down in terms of session management. If it did...it usually was catastrophic...a power supply dying, etc. Which was only maybe once a year.
I like Radar because it sounds great...and has never crashed for me. I always feel apprehensive about Protools because it is only as stable as the computer it's running on. I HATE the phrase..."It's never done this before!!!!"
For me...the technology of recording should be as transparent as possible...Protools tends to be the focus of attention too much during a session.
Now, back to that bottle of wine.....
Eric
Post by: Mixerman on November 10, 2005, 02:44:30 AM
| djui5 wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 13:06 | ||
You wouldn't let Curve Dominant align your tape machine would you? Why let someone who isn't familiar with Pro-Tools calibrate it? Radar is a different system than Pro-Tools is. It's a stand alone DAW. |
First of all, I wouldn't let someone that isn't well versed in Alsihad operation in a room with me if I was going to be using the beast. Frankly, I tend to only frequent studios with assistants that have far more going for them than just that, and usually I have a guy that is there specifically for his expertise on the system. The fact of the matter is, you can't swing a dead cat in an LA studio without hitting an "expert" in the system. Literally. Swing a dead cat, and you'll hit one. Every time.
I find fascinating the double speak that goes on constantly on the internet where Alsihad is concerned. On the one hand, we have guys telling us how Alsihad is the most popular recording platform, with doomsayer predictions on how those that don't use it will eventually stop working. That's the "adapt or die" principle.
Yet, somehow on the other hand, when it comes to a digital transfer, finding an "expert" in using Alsihad is the equivalent of finding a virgin at a working porn stars convention. Remarkable. If the platform is the most popular, and is instrumental to the business that experienced engineers who don't use it are certain to become obsolete, logic wold seem to dictate that an awful lot of people would learn how to use it. Right? Hell, you'd think an insane number of people would learn how to use it. And use it well.
Well, they do. Especially here in LA.
What I want to know is this: What can be so difficult about this kind of transfer? Do I need to be an expert to understand that all the internal faders need to be a unity? Do I need to be an expert to know to that improper level might adversely affect my results? Do I need to be an expert to know to dump a superfluous master fader from the internal mixer? Do I need to be an expert to know not to use any plug-ins in the process? Do I need to be an expert to tell me not to make the transfer locked to timecode as that can cause other problems with audio quality? Do I need to be an expert to know that if I don't have inputs and ouputs calibrated PRECISELY, that I can't accurately judge between A and B? Do I need to be an expert to know that improperly wired cables could affect my results? Do I need to be an expert to know that repeatability is the key to knowing there is a problem with a device?
Oh, wait! Could it be that I'M an expert?
Oh. no, no, no. Sorry, forgot. I'm a dinosaur.
Ahem.
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding EXACTLY what it is that I would need to be an expert for, other than being an expert in RECORDING. Particularly when you consider, studios don't hire assistants in LA that don't absolutely smoke on Alsihad. Of course, very few of our modern day Alishad savvy assistants, by the way, could align a tape deck to save their lives; have little to no skill set in actually making a remotely listenable recording; don't even KNOW what single-ended means or even what this sort of connection sounds like; and couldn't trouble-shoot their way out of a paper bag. But calibrating Alsihad? In their sleep, baby! In their sleep!
Of course, they're the "experts." Right?
Insanity abounds.
Mixerman
Post by: Fletcher on November 10, 2005, 07:40:54 AM
So... as long as there are "QC controls" installed in this testing method [like the printing of tones to insure a consistent level from machine to machine] then it's all good...
I know there is no way in hell I can skew the results, and enough "witnesses" [this one's for you Curve] who can "testify" that I seriously don't think anyone can skew these results... if they can, and are caught, well it's Chicago so it should present no significant problem to dispose of the body.
As for PT being significantly different from RADAR... not in this specific application. We are using both as an in/out 'unity gain' storage device. Yes, PT has a bazillion more features and functions than RADAR... but that is not the focus of our testing... the focus is just about in/out 'unity gain' storage. Nothing more, nothing less.
As a reminder... the premise is that PT will suffer a palpable lack of balls in the reproduction of the source material. The PT system employed will be the PT system owned by CRC... a long standing symbol of quality recording in the greater Chicagoland area... this ain't some basement in Des Moines, these people actually do maintenance... so the things should go smoothly and without too much drama.
Post by: thedoc on November 10, 2005, 12:11:10 PM
Post by: The Resonater on November 10, 2005, 03:06:43 PM
Has there been any official decision on whether your on site listening tests will be conducted "blind"? I can't really tell or perhaps I missed it from the "methodology" thread. Whadya think?
Post by: The Resonater on November 10, 2005, 03:11:34 PM
Thoughts?
Post by: djui5 on November 11, 2005, 03:16:37 AM
| The Resonater wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 13:06 |
Fletcher (or anyone), Has there been any official decision on whether your on site listening tests will be conducted "blind"? I can't really tell or perhaps I missed it from the "methodology" thread. Whadya think? |
I personally think they should be. It's the only way to truely know if there is a concensus on any "problems".....
| Quote: |
Oh, and another thing. Does anyone have any interest in recording through Radar convertors into Pro Tools? I mean, "if" there were an identifiable problem with Pro Tools, does anyone think this would wholly be the fault of the Digi 192 convertors or could there be some inherent issue with Pro Tools software? "If" a problem were found to exist, could you quickly throw down a pass using the Radar convertors? |
It wouldn't hurt to print to a Radar system through it's converters, and also print to Pro-Tools through an alternate set of converters IF a problem is found.
I think they should just align the tape, print it to Pro-Tools through 192's, and see if there is a problem. If there is, verified by a double blind test, then start using other converters and systems to see which, if any, DON'T have the problem.
Post by: djui5 on November 13, 2005, 01:53:25 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 00:44 | ||||
First of all, I wouldn't let someone that isn't well versed in Alsihad operation in a room with me if I was going to be using the beast. Frankly, I tend to only frequent studios with assistants that have far more going for them than just that, and usually I have a guy that is there specifically for his expertise on the system. The fact of the matter is, you can't swing a dead cat in an LA studio without hitting an "expert" in the system. Literally. Swing a dead cat, and you'll hit one. Every time. Of course, they're the "experts." Right? Insanity abounds. Mixerman |
Then having an expert there won't be a problem.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 13, 2005, 11:33:09 PM
I'm mastering a project where the engineer sent the output of a Neve to both an Apogee AD-500 feeding a Masterlink at 44.1 AND back into the digi 192 at 48k. His note says to check out the MasterLink files in addition to the 48k files.
The Masterlink files have that missing bottom-octave plain as day! I'm going to at least ask if I can post samples although I don't expect they'll go for it.
Post by: Fletcher on November 14, 2005, 06:47:25 AM
| djui5 wrote on Sun, 13 November 2005 13:53 | ||||||
Then having an expert there won't be a problem. |
I think we can safely work from the premise that Gannon Kashiwa is indeed an top gun Alsihah... after all, he works at DigiDesign and will be there as their representative.
This is like the 3rd or 4th time I've had to point this out... is there a part of this that is difficult to understand? ...or are some folk commenting before reading all the previous posts.
FYI, there is no "Cliff Notes" version of this... please read and comprehend all previous material before wasting space on this thread and more importantly, before wasting my time.
Thank you.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 14, 2005, 10:01:30 AM
| Fletcher wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 05:47 |
...I think we can safely work from the premise that Gannon Kashiwa is indeed an top gun Alsihah... after all, he works at DigiDesign and will be there as their representative. |
Gannon sounds to me, at least speaking with him on the phone, like he is very knowledgeable indeed but this company is the classic case of people needing to know more to successfully use their products than you seem to need to know in order to get a job designing or selling them. My point is that people's concerns about expertise are not unfounded. Thankfully we are addressing one of the real problems as opposed to the imaginary ones that the uninitiated often complain about.
Post by: Ron Steele on November 14, 2005, 11:31:23 AM
I mean WTF, were talking about a pocket screw driver to calibrate the 192 out-put.
I'm sure that between staff from CRC, Steve, Fletcher and Gannon, and just about anybody else in the control room will be able to tell when the tone hits fucking zero.
Let's get past this one.
Post by: ajcamlet on November 14, 2005, 11:36:28 AM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 13 November 2005 23:33 |
I may have just found a "smoking gun." I'm mastering a project where the engineer sent the output of a Neve to both an Apogee AD-500 feeding a Masterlink at 44.1 AND back into the digi 192 at 48k. His note says to check out the MasterLink files in addition to the 48k files. The Masterlink files have that missing bottom-octave plain as day! I'm going to at least ask if I can post samples although I don't expect they'll go for it. |
Anymore thoughts/notes on this Bob?
Post by: Mixerman on November 14, 2005, 01:57:10 PM
| Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 08:31 |
I mean WTF, were talking about a pocket screw driver to calibrate the 192 out-put. |
According to Rail Jon Ragu and Rick Krizman, it's far more than that. But to this point, neither one has explained what part of a transfer would require an "expert." Nor, have they supplied the definition of an "expert." Now, Ron is here stating that an ability with a pocket screwdriver qualifies.
I just want someone to explain to me, precisly what the qualifications are of an "Alsihad expert." I am absolutely fascinated with how knowledgeable one must be to make a transfer into this system.
Please. Someone explain to me. WHO would be qualified to make such a transfer, and WHY. It's a little vague right now.
Mixerman
Post by: djui5 on November 14, 2005, 02:30:24 PM
Rail, anything I missed?
For this transfer, you need an "expert" to set up a calibration session and make sure all the inputs and outputs are calibrated to the tests operating level, whatever that may be, check the system to make sure everything is working properly, check the hard drives to ensure they will handle the task properly, ensure the system is clocked properly, then record and playback some audio to finally ensure proper input/output settings.
They should also know what to do and more importantly what NOT to do during something like this.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 14, 2005, 03:09:02 PM
I'd like to see an "expert" involved so that an effective solution might be found on the spot.
Post by: blairl on November 14, 2005, 03:15:13 PM
Post by: azuolas on November 14, 2005, 03:15:41 PM
I am new to this thread so forgive me if some of the information below has already been discussed.
I am one of the engineers at Chicago Recording Company and will be helping during this test "party" on Friday.
I can guarantee that the Pro Tools system in Studio 5 (which is where the tests will be held) is in top shape. I maintain all the Pro Tools systems at CRC Post Production and Music Studios and can accomodate any requests you might have for this testing session. We will be calibrating 192 IO A side to -18dBFS and side B to -20dBFS unless there is a different concensus that other values should be used. One of the participants not mentioned in the post is one of our senior tech engineers Bruce Breckenfeld who is to my knowledge the top analog tech engineer in town and an expert with the AP system that will be at hand to make any desired scientific measurements.
We do have both Big Ben and Sync IO for reference clocks.
We also have the older versions of Prism Sound AD2 and DA2 adcs and dacs. They only go up to 48KHz. If the sample rates above 48KHz are desired we can provide Apogee Rosetta 200 ADC/DAC unit. We do not have a masterlink but we can provide a second Pro Tools rig to be used as a recording device.
At the end of this process I would be happy to post the session files on our web site if there is anybody interested in downloading these samples to hear the results of Friday's tests.
If you have any questions or suggestions please feel free to contact me at 312-822-9333 or azuolas@limeaudio.com
Thanks
Azuolas Sinkevicius
Chicago Recording Company
Post by: RKrizman on November 14, 2005, 03:58:11 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 13:57 | ||
According to Rail Jon Ragu and Rick Krizman, it's far more than that. But to this point, neither one has explained what part of a transfer would require an "expert." Nor, have they supplied the definition of an "expert." Now, Ron is here stating that an ability with a pocket screwdriver qualifies. I just want someone to explain to me, precisly what the qualifications are of an "Alsihad expert." I am absolutely fascinated with how knowledgeable one must be to make a transfer into this system. Please. Someone explain to me. WHO would be qualified to make such a transfer, and WHY. It's a little vague right now. Mixerman |
I know, it's sort of like hiring the accounting firm of Ernst & Young to deliver the results of the Miss USA balloting, when it could be done by a 4th grader with a pencil.
Seriously, though, this protects your point of view, insofar as there will be no way a PT apologist, faced with unfortunate test results, can mitigate them by claiming something was done incorrectly. So if a guy with a screwdriver is a PT expert, then by all means, let's make sure he attends. There should probably be an analog expert there too. That would be the guy with that other thingy that's sort of like a flimsy screwdriver, but not really.
-R
Post by: blairl on November 14, 2005, 05:17:11 PM
| azuolas wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 13:15 |
We will be calibrating 192 IO A side to -18dBFS and side B to -20dBFS unless there is a different concensus that other values should be used. |
I think -18 and -24 were mentioned but I don't know if there was a final decision. Also, my bet is that they will want to do the calibration using the tones on the 2", not the internal PT signal generator or any other external tone generator. So you will have to do the calibrating on the spot at the test session. Am I correct with my assumption?
| Quote: |
We do not have a masterlink but we can provide a second Pro Tools rig to be used as a recording device. |
I think there will be an objection to that. Some of the participants want to take Pro Tools completely out of the equation as a storage medium for the mixes. Do you have any other 24 bit 96k capable storage devices? Does someone need to bring one?
Post by: Tomas Danko on November 14, 2005, 06:26:26 PM
I mean, if Pro Tools would take any data from any converter and futz with the low end, that would be some pretty intense erratic math to act as a roll off filter when after all it's just supposed to sit there and store byte after byte into RAM and onto harddrives.
Or maybe it was always a question about the Digidesign converters, and I missed the initial post somewhere?
Cheers,
Tomas Danko
Post by: Eric Rudd on November 14, 2005, 06:34:32 PM
This can be in addition to playing a music track off 2". Sort of takes the guess work out of "I think there's a dip at 100Hz???"
I call a small screwdriver a "greenie." I guess that disqualifies me from being an expert.
Eric
Post by: Eric Rudd on November 14, 2005, 06:39:21 PM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 23:26 |
Am I the only one here failing to see what this has got to do with the Pro Tools application, when it all seems to be happening at the ADC? Tomas Danko |
Hi Tomas,
I have experienced one case were the application is responsible for level discrepancies. We are still using a MixPlus system with PT 6.4.1. When a session is created at +12db fader gain and a signal is recorded, the output of the D/A is about 10db LOWER than if the session was created at a +6db fader gain. Go figger. Digi knows about the problem but hasn't done a permanent fix. Probably won't.
Eric
Post by: RKrizman on November 14, 2005, 07:09:10 PM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 18:26 |
I mean, if Pro Tools would take any data from any converter and futz with the low end, that would be some pretty intense erratic math to act as a roll off filter when after all it's just supposed to sit there and store byte after byte into RAM and onto harddrives. |
If it's just recording and spitting back one file I agree, it's hard to see how it could not do it accurately. However, when you have the computer, or onboard DSP, simultaneously spitting out more than one file, as in the case of multiple tracks, it's certainly conceivable that because of the sequential nature of how a computer does it's business that there could be a phasing issue. I mean, in a multi-mic array such as you use on a drum set, where an inch either way on mic placement can affect your overall tonality, it would also mean that during playback if any part of any track found itself delayed by as little as a single sample the result could be phase problems.
The question this brings up is whether we can say that when you hit playback on Protools do the first samples of each track hit their respective D/A at exactly the same time?
If a low end problem is observed in this test it would be interesting to see if it also exists when only one track is played.
-R
Post by: Gannon Kashiwa on November 14, 2005, 07:15:35 PM
We have to settle on some sort of a master recorder that will allow us to switch between mixes seamlessly. I've been involved in many listening tests and you have to be able to switch with the least amount of interruption possible otherwise you lose your point of reference. Long segments are a problem as well because of the dynamic nature of music. I've found that looping short segments of a couple of bars or so is good because you can hear the sublties on the same notes over and over and pick out the differences.
So, if all that's available is Pro Tools or RADAR can we rent a Masterlink or Genex or another 24/96k system that is agreeable to all? I'll be happy to help defray the cost and have no bias toward one system or another so as long as its acceptable to all involved, I'm good. I appreciate Steve's point about comparing generationally removed material but that's more reason to have a seamlessly switching playback system.
Blind is the only way to get an unbiased result.
Thoughts?
-GK
Post by: RKrizman on November 14, 2005, 07:42:07 PM
| Eric Rudd wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 18:34 |
One thing I'm not sure has been suggested (so many posts, so little time)... I would think it beneficial to print then play back a set of tones (15kHz, 10kHz, 1kHz, 500Hz, 100Hz, 50Hz) off the 2" into ProTools, then at least any input/output differences would be quantifiable. This can be in addition to playing a music track off 2". Sort of takes the guess work out of "I think there's a dip at 100Hz???" I call a small screwdriver a "greenie." I guess that disqualifies me from being an expert. Eric |
Unfortunately nobody has been able to measure any glaring low end rolloff in Protools using tones or white noise or any other screwdriver oriented methodology. The premise now is that the low end loss is of a nature that can't be detected by normal frequency measurements, but is nonetheless glaring.
But I think you're right. At least the 3 standard alignment tones from the multitrack should be printed and referenced, if only to show what's not the problem.
-R
Post by: Tomas Danko on November 14, 2005, 08:14:17 PM
| RKrizman wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 00:09 | ||
The question this brings up is whether we can say that when you hit playback on Protools do the first samples of each track hit their respective D/A at exactly the same time? If a low end problem is observed in this test it would be interesting to see if it also exists when only one track is played. -R |
We're talking about a low octave area here. Given the wavelength and comb filtering involved in such a case, shouldn't the phase mismatch be pretty horrifyingly big? I'm with you on the theory, but it seems like too big an ugly head to hide in such a widely used application.
Sincerely,
Tomas Danko
Post by: djui5 on November 15, 2005, 03:29:19 AM
| Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 17:15 |
Hi all, We have to settle on some sort of a master recorder that will allow us to switch between mixes seamlessly. I've been involved in many listening tests and you have to be able to switch with the least amount of interruption possible otherwise you lose your point of reference. Long segments are a problem as well because of the dynamic nature of music. I've found that looping short segments of a couple of bars or so is good because you can hear the sublties on the same notes over and over and pick out the differences. So, if all that's available is Pro Tools or RADAR can we rent a Masterlink or Genex or another 24/96k system that is agreeable to all? I'll be happy to help defray the cost and have no bias toward one system or another so as long as its acceptable to all involved, I'm good. I appreciate Steve's point about comparing generationally removed material but that's more reason to have a seamlessly switching playback system. Blind is the only way to get an unbiased result. Thoughts? -GK |
I agree. Printing to a master recorder to switch between results is going to be a required task for something like this. It takes too much time, even switching with Elco's, to switch between tape and Pro-Tools/Radar to listen to playback. It's been proven time and time again that you "forget" what the previous sound was like after a period of something like 30 seconds.
After reading Bob's post (message #105335 on previous page) about the Masterlink missing the bottom octave, I think we can rule the Masterlink out of the equasion.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 15, 2005, 08:52:49 AM
Certainly seems to be an A to D issue. Eq also seems to affect the two files very differently suggesting there may indeed be some kind of a strange phase issue. I wasn't able to restore (or add?) the "balls" back into the 192 version.
I'm jammed but hope to try nulling out the files against each other when I get some time.
Post by: djui5 on November 15, 2005, 02:18:51 PM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 06:52 |
Whoa, it was the Masterlink driven by an Apogee AD-500 converter that had the extra low-end and the mix back into the 192 that didn't! |
Thanks. I must have misread your post.
Post by: rnicklaus on November 15, 2005, 03:40:35 PM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 13 November 2005 20:33 |
I may have just found a "smoking gun." I'm mastering a project where the engineer sent the output of a Neve to both an Apogee AD-500 feeding a Masterlink at 44.1 AND back into the digi 192 at 48k. His note says to check out the MasterLink files in addition to the 48k files. The Masterlink files have that missing bottom-octave plain as day! I'm going to at least ask if I can post samples although I don't expect they'll go for it. |
A couple of thoughts here.
1. This goes along with my original statement that a 1/2 mix into the digi 192 should/could show the problem.
2. When it is stated that the mix was sent BACK to the digi 192 does this mean that this Pro Tools system was also the multi track?
Post by: rnicklaus on November 15, 2005, 03:44:18 PM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 05:52 |
Whoa, it was the Masterlink driven by an Apogee AD-500 converter that had the extra low-end and the mix back into the 192 that didn't! Certainly seems to be an A to D issue. Eq also seems to affect the two files very differently suggesting there may indeed be some kind of a strange phase issue. I wasn't able to restore (or add?) the "balls" back into the 192 version. I'm jammed but hope to try nulling out the files against each other when I get some time. |
If the Digi 192 was the multi track, the bottom octave, if this theory is correct, would have been chopped off in recording but then brought back in the mix, but then not able to be fixed again with mastering EQ?
Post by: compasspnt on November 15, 2005, 06:24:03 PM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 13 November 2005 23:33 |
I may have just found a "smoking gun." [...] The Masterlink files have that missing bottom-octave plain as day! |
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 08:52 |
Whoa, it was the Masterlink driven by an Apogee AD-500 converter that had the extra low-end and the mix back into the 192 that didn't! |
| djui5 wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 14:18 | ||
Thanks. I must have misread your post. |
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 15:44 |
If the Digi 192 was the multi track, the bottom octave, if this theory is correct, would have been chopped off in recording but then brought back in the mix, but then not able to be fixed again with mastering EQ? |
I am getting confused here...
Post by: djui5 on November 15, 2005, 07:18:02 PM
The one printed to Pro-Tools was lacking low end, and he couldn't put it back with a mastering process.
Randy (the other one) was curious if Pro-Tools was being used at the multi-track. If so, and if the 192's were the problem with the low end, the low end would have been lopped off during the recording process when recording to the 192's, put back with the Neve during mixing, then lopped off again when printing the 2 mix through the 192's again.
Post by: RKrizman on November 15, 2005, 07:53:13 PM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 08:52 |
Whoa, it was the Masterlink driven by an Apogee AD-500 converter that had the extra low-end and the mix back into the 192 that didn't! Certainly seems to be an A to D issue. Eq also seems to affect the two files very differently suggesting there may indeed be some kind of a strange phase issue. I wasn't able to restore (or add?) the "balls" back into the 192 version. I'm jammed but hope to try nulling out the files against each other when I get some time. |
Is the low end anomaly measurable?
-R
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 15, 2005, 11:23:03 PM
I can't imagine everything didn't measure perfectly flat with tones. It's a low frequency dynamics thing somewhat like comparing different power amps can be.
The Apogee files actually sounded a bit muddier but when I shelved the low-end back a little, the results had more "balls" in the kick and bass than I could pull out of the 192 files.
Post by: ajcamlet on November 16, 2005, 10:45:50 AM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 23:23 |
The Apogee files actually sounded a bit muddier but when I shelved the low-end back a little, the results had more "balls" in the kick and bass than I could pull out of the 192 files. |
Is it possible the Apogee/ML files "added" or colored the mix?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 16, 2005, 11:27:28 AM
The first time I heard a 192 was in an SSL 9k room and it sounded really good. The times I have compared it to other a to d converters it struck me as being a decent upper middle-class converter but not among the group at the very top. I didn't notice any low frequency loss.
My point is that I've BOTH heard this problem and not heard this problem. I'd love to know why.
Post by: Mixerman on November 16, 2005, 12:16:58 PM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 16 November 2005 08:27 |
Certainly possible but this was almost the exact kind of difference I heard between a 192 and a live source at a session a few months earlier. The first time I heard a 192 was in an SSL 9k room and it sounded really good. The times I have compared it to other a to d converters it struck me as being a decent upper middle-class converter but not among the group at the very top. I didn't notice any low frequency loss. My point is that I've BOTH heard this problem and not heard this problem. I'd love to know why. |
The time you didn't here the problem, you were probably hearing input into the rig. If you had heard the source as it was coming off the bus as compared to input into the rig, then you would have heard the problem that time as well.
Mixerman
Post by: RKrizman on November 16, 2005, 03:48:05 PM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 23:23 |
The Pro Tools system was also the multi track which means the power supplies were busy. I think I saw three 192s running in the machine room when I visited the tracking session earlier in the week. |
So the 3 192's were outputting tracks to a console, the output of which was recorded through an Apogee to a masterlink and also back into the (same?) 192 into Protools? Was it a bounce to disc or was it recorded 24 bit to a track and then further dithered down? Any SRC?
So the low end loss was not on the PT outputs, because it was present on the Masterlink. Also, it was not lost on the way in during the original recording. So it means that it lost it on the way back in, theoretically because the power supply was being overly taxed? Seems like a reasonable conjecture, but not one that would explain the Mixerman scenario.
Two other possibilities. One is that the Apogee is just bulkier sounding. My AD-8000 is, and I use it accordingly. However, if I want a more clean and transparent sound I use the 192--like sending to and from outboard gear and monitoring.
The other possibility is that in the bus assignments in the PT session something from the multitrack session could have been accidentally sent to whatever bus was receiving the mix input from the console. I've had this happen by accident on brainless days and the result can be a skewed freg response due to the delays of the D/A converters compared to internal bussing.
Happy hunting.
-R
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 16, 2005, 04:06:47 PM
Rail
Post by: Bob Olhsson on November 16, 2005, 04:09:46 PM
I thought I posted that the 48kHz. 24 bit files had been recorded back into the pro tools session. No "bounce" involved. I've been tracking a bit with Apogee 8000s. This isn't that kind of darkness. I also find most of the "bulk" seems to be in the DACs.
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 16, 2005, 04:17:18 PM
Rail
Post by: rnicklaus on November 16, 2005, 04:47:26 PM
| Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 16 November 2005 13:17 |
Right -we do that all the time.. you take the stereo buss out of the SSL 9K (or whatever) and feed it into inputs 47 & 48 of Pro Tools and feed outputs 47 & 48 into a 2 track monitor position. You then keep 47 & 48 in solo isolate in Pro Tools and locked on input. You then can switch between the desk mix and playback from 47 & 48 (Pro Tools) to compare them. If there's any loss of quality, you'd know immediately. This is standard practise. Rail |
Things that would be helpful to know
Were these two versions done during the same pass? How/where did they split out of the console.
As Bob said the producer asked for him to also listen to the masterlink file, was the mix back into pro tools supposed to be the main format?
If so, it would seem as the producer and engineer would have listened to the mix playback to make sure there were no glitches (which would include the bottom octave falling off).
It all doesn't seem clear in how this mix in that format made it out of the studio.
Post by: compasspnt on November 16, 2005, 05:36:20 PM
| Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 16 November 2005 16:17 |
Right -we do that all the time.. you take the stereo buss out of the SSL 9K (or whatever) and feed it into inputs 47 & 48 of Pro Tools and feed outputs 47 & 48 into a 2 track monitor position. You then keep 47 & 48 in solo isolate in Pro Tools and locked on input. You then can switch between the desk mix and playback from 47 & 48 (Pro Tools) to compare them. If there's any loss of quality, you'd know immediately. This is standard practise. Rail |
Exactly. Done it a million times (it seems like).
And any time I've ever mixed to two or more destinations, I always check them against each other. (Sometimes it's hard with a 1/2" analogue in the equation to get exactly the same start times though.) How could you not? Even the cat would, facing certain death.
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on November 16, 2005, 05:41:18 PM
Letting anything like this out the door makes me wonder what else was not checked.
Rail
Post by: compasspnt on November 16, 2005, 10:46:56 PM
| Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 16 November 2005 17:41 |
Yes, but even with analog 1/2" I'll print while monitoring off the playback head and switch between the desk and tape at least twice while printing (mainly listening to the 1/2"). Letting anything like this out the door makes me wonder what else was not checked. Rail |
Yes, I do that whenever possible (monitoring through 1/2" playback head/switching sources), but since I usually leave a few things to do manually, sometimes it's not possible. Usually don't just "print."
But what you say makes perfect sense.
Post by: Gannon Kashiwa on November 17, 2005, 01:35:51 PM
I really don't get paid enough to have to fucking wet nurse this shit on an hourly basis.
What the fuck does Digi Design have to hide at 96kHz? It seems that Gannon and Ron have this dreaded fear of the 96kHz sampling rate... I don't get it.
Are we being rushed out of the room or something? Do we have like 2 hours to get this done with another session breathing down our neck?
If there is nothing to hide... let's let it all hang out. Who knows, the MM phenomenon might occur at 48 and not 96... or PT may kick RADAR's ass up and down the block.
BTW, I removed a post by "Extreme Mixing" because it didn't belong in this fucking thread [I can remove posts, I can't put them back... so I really do owe you an apology!!!]. Now that I've seen all the other horseshit nonsense that has sprung up here no matter how fucking nicely I tried to ask people to follow some pretty rudimentary motherfucking rules... the answer to your question Mr. Mixing is that the second part of MM's original thread had him doing the transfer from analog to RADAR without the loss he mentioned in PT.
It's interesting... many [MANY!] of the people I know who work in helLAy encounter RADAR at least as much as PT... it's a big city, there is lots of shit happening all the time.
With any luck, this part of the debate can and/or will be held in any of the other 3 fucking threads attached to this bullshit.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
Fletcher,
I have no bias against or fear of 96k, I was simply trying to simplify the test and re-focus it on what I thought was the orginal goal. I couldn't find (and still can't) Mixerman's post where he said what sample rate he used and didn't know he'd done both, so I apologize for that. It seems like we should do both 48k and 96k but why don't we settle on one digital reference level and at least cut two passes out? As long as there aren't digital overs, it really shouldn't matter.
-GK
Post by: rnicklaus on November 17, 2005, 02:01:23 PM
Post by: Ron Steele on November 17, 2005, 03:16:34 PM
MM quote:
"I did 48k and 96k transfers. I'm fine with using 44.1 instead of 48, but you should do 96k along with the lower sample rate."
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
and
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
MM quote:
"Regardless, you will need to get out your 2" and transfer 8-10 tracks of bass and drums into Aslihad HD at 24 bit-48k. What you do AFTER that, I don't care, But you must perform that transfer and comparison specifically."
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
MM, when and where did you originally mention anything about transferring at 96k when you first made the claim against Digi?
I don't specifically recall seeing this in the numerous threads where this was discussed.
Post by: Fletcher on November 17, 2005, 03:28:44 PM
| Gannon Kashiwa wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 13:35 |
Fletcher, I have no bias against or fear of 96k, I was simply trying to simplify the test and re-focus it on what I thought was the orginal goal. I couldn't find (and still can't) Mixerman's post where he said what sample rate he used and didn't know he'd done both, so I apologize for that. It seems like we should do both 48k and 96k but why don't we settle on one digital reference level and at least cut two passes out? As long as there aren't digital overs, it really shouldn't matter. -GK |
Cool.
First, I'd like to thank you for moving this to an appropriate thread!!!!!!!!!!
Ron and I talked about that on the phone. I believe P-T HD ships set to -18dbfs; so that's the level at which we agreed to run this... if y'all can agree to that I'll say we have a quorum and can move forward from there.
In another "PM" it was mentioned that should we find any of these formats lacking we should try them with just a single channel source that has lots of low end... like a kik drum. That would be a way to determine if this problem might be related to the power supply running out of "current on demand" as had been suggested a possibility by Bob O.
Does anyone have any feelings on this one way or the other?
Post by: RKrizman on November 17, 2005, 03:32:35 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 15:28 |
[ In another "PM" it was mentioned that should we find any of these formats lacking we should try them with just a single channel source that has lots of low end... like a kik drum. That would be a way to determine if this problem might be related to the power supply running out of "current on demand" as had been suggested a possibility by Bob O. Does anyone have any feelings on this one way or the other? |
Hey, I think it's a great idea!
-R
Post by: bblackwood on November 17, 2005, 03:42:27 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 14:28 |
In another "PM" it was mentioned that should we find any of these formats lacking we should try them with just a single channel source that has lots of low end... like a kik drum. That would be a way to determine if this problem might be related to the power supply running out of "current on demand" as had been suggested a possibility by Bob O. Does anyone have any feelings on this one way or the other? |
A sine wave requires much greater current than a transient (at same peak levels) - try a 40Hz tone at full scale...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 17, 2005, 04:59:22 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 12:28 | ||
Cool. First, I'd like to thank you for moving this to an appropriate thread!!!!!!!!!! Ron and I talked about that on the phone. I believe P-T HD ships set to -18dbfs; so that's the level at which we agreed to run this... if y'all can agree to that I'll say we have a quorum and can move forward from there. In another "PM" it was mentioned that should we find any of these formats lacking we should try them with just a single channel source that has lots of low end... like a kik drum. That would be a way to determine if this problem might be related to the power supply running out of "current on demand" as had been suggested a possibility by Bob O. Does anyone have any feelings on this one way or the other? |
Regarding single channel source as it pertains to the possible power supply issue, My thought was to simply solo the kick or bass on the console (or the tone Brad suggests) and after listening to the sound, solo the protools mixer on the same source, thereby cutting out everything else going out through 192's.
This should show any changes in real time.
Post by: RKrizman on November 17, 2005, 05:21:12 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 16:59 |
Regarding single channel source as it pertains to the possible power supply issue, My thought was to simply solo the kick or bass on the console (or the tone Brad suggests) and after listening to the sound, solo the protools mixer on the same source, thereby cutting out everything else going out through 192's. This should show any changes in real time. |
What if the damage occurs going in rather than playing back.
Presuming a problem will be heard, I think it depends on how much time anybody wants to spend trying to solve the problem.
-R
Post by: rnicklaus on November 17, 2005, 06:49:59 PM
| RKrizman wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 14:21 | ||
What if the damage occurs going in rather than playing back. -R |
Then my idea won't work?
Post by: The Resonater on November 17, 2005, 09:16:02 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 18:35 |
It's interesting... many [MANY!] of the people I know who work in helLAy encounter RADAR at least as much as PT... it's a big city, there is lots of shit happening all the time. |
I believe that Fletcher wrote the above quote. And I hope that I'm not posting on the wrong thread. I apologize in advance if I am.
But, honestly, I don't know a single soul out here in L.A. who is working on Radar. We have hosted Chris Lord-Alge for the last 15+ years, and CLA mixes literally hundreds of files each year. Over the last 5 years, I think we had only one project come in that was originally done on Radar. Not that I'm trying to make any qualitative statement here. I personally LOVE the sound of Radar. But really, I don't know anyone out here working on that system. I think that Bill Bottrell might be using Radar, but he's mostly up in Northern Cali.
Just my two cents. I didn't even read the whole thread above to see how this is pertinent anyway...
Post by: The Resonater on November 17, 2005, 10:16:37 PM
Thanks to all of you for taking time out of your schedules to set up, attend, and conduct these tests. Let's face it...everyone has a life; some have kids, some have sessions, some have business's to run, and for all of you guys to do this is totally cool. Fletcher's flying in from the east coast, Gannon is coming from the western U.S. (Denver?), and perhaps there are others making long trips ON OUR MUTHA F*CKIN BEHALF so we can all learn more about the tools that we work with every day.
So when I see any one of you, please feel free to ask me where that free drink is, because I OWE YOU ALL A STRONG ONE!
Thanks again for all your efforts, guys. And thanks to CRC and their staff for being gracious enough to offer their facilities, time and efforts. Fletcher, Ron, Steve, Gannon and anyone else attending, thanks.
Post by: compasspnt on November 17, 2005, 10:24:10 PM
"Hear, hear."
Post by: Greg Norman on November 17, 2005, 11:08:38 PM
Good luck everyone.
Post by: Ron Steele on November 18, 2005, 09:18:14 AM
Post by: Fletcher on November 18, 2005, 10:26:14 AM
| The Resonater wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 21:16 |
We have hosted Chris Lord-Alge for the last 15+ years, and CLA mixes literally hundreds of files each year. |
We're talking about records that are trying to sound good... so while I have quite enjoyed tipping a couple back with CLA in the past... let's not confuse that for good sounding records...
Post by: compasspnt on November 18, 2005, 10:55:45 AM
| Fletcher wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 10:26 |
We're talking about records that are trying to sound good... so while I have quite enjoyed tipping a couple back with CLA in the past... let's not confuse that for good sounding records... |
Ooooof...
Post by: rnicklaus on November 18, 2005, 11:35:35 AM
| Fletcher wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 07:26 | ||
We're talking about records that are trying to sound good... so while I have quite enjoyed tipping a couple back with CLA in the past... let's not confuse that for good sounding records... |
This doesn't address the amount of records that CLA mixes every year and the format they are recorded on.
Post by: Mixerman on November 18, 2005, 12:04:00 PM
Those that get into Alsihad do so for the editing capabilities and the work. Frankly, anyone that purchases Alsihad purely for it's sonics, hasn't done their homework.
Every now and then, I go to an industry party somewhere, and I'll invariably meet someone that you would think I'd have met 12 years ago. Invariably, the reason our paths haven't crossed is we frequent different types of studios. I am partial to certain Neve consoles, and tend to work at Neve studios. Some are partial to SSL consoles, and ther to work at SSL studios. Yes, there are some studios that have both, but less than you might think.
My point in all of this is. You only tend to see what is in front of you. If anyone spent a year with me, going to studios, that person would be convinced there are no SSL consoles in this town, and that all LA engineers prefer Neve consoles. They would be convinced, that the whole world is making records on 2" tape, because I, and most of my friends still work in this manner.
There is a world far beyond the scope of our own vision.
Mixerman
Post by: Ron Steele on November 18, 2005, 12:47:20 PM
Exactly, so why all this fuss?
Can't we just leave it at that without all the BS debates over what one uses to do his work?
Has anybody ever said your a hack for still using 2" or radar and dissed you for it?
I doubt it.
Post by: rnicklaus on November 18, 2005, 12:53:41 PM
I agree with much of your post.
If this has any trace of John's post re CLA, a quick check if his discography shows some pretty big country records cut in Nashville.
I still believe when someone does the volume of business from so many varied projects, they would have a huge chance to see a cross section of formats. It's a pretty wide scope.
Post by: Mixerman on November 18, 2005, 12:57:01 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 09:53 |
Mixerman, I agree with much of your post. If this has any trace of John's post re CLA, a quick check if his discography shows some pretty big country records cut in Nashville. I still believe when someone does the volume of business from so many varied projects, they would have a huge chance to see a cross section of formats. It's a pretty wide scope. |
From my understanding, CLA only accepts Alsihad files (these days). He wouldn't know WHAT it was cut on, nor would he care. This would seem to limit his scope, not widen it.
Mixerman
Post by: malice on November 18, 2005, 01:25:03 PM
| Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 18:47 |
"There is a world far beyond the scope of our own vision." Exactly, so why all this fuss? Can't we just leave it at that without all the BS debates over what one uses to do his work? Has anybody ever said your a hack for still using 2" or radar and dissed you for it? I doubt it. |
That is not the point. The point is to know limitations of a given medium in order to be able to use it. Everyone that has made a transfer from analog to any digital medium should be interested by this test, and that's about all we can learn from it.
It won't change the recording industry and I have no doubt it would change anyone's habits as far as recording is concerned. But as I experienced problem of low end myself with PT, I'm more than happy to have this opportunity to understand better the phenomenon.
Two thinks can happen now from my own and insignificant point of view.
1) there is a lack of low end, and I will be please to know I'm not alone. And people that swear to their god they haven't heard nothing should wonder if their ears or monitoring system is not seriously flawed.
2) there is not a lack of low end, and I should wonder why I have heard it and why it seems to be a collective delusion and what could be the reason.
I'm curious, that's all, and when you put aside the pissing contest, you will find it is just about time we make a test and verify.
I won't throw the stone at you Ron, you had the good idea to organised this. Mo power to ya
malice
Post by: Mixerman on November 18, 2005, 03:36:19 PM
| Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 09:47 |
"There is a world far beyond the scope of our own vision." Exactly, so why all this fuss? Can't we just leave it at that without all the BS debates over what one uses to do his work? Has anybody ever said your a hack for still using 2" or radar and dissed you for it? I doubt it. |
I defy you, or anyone else, to show me anywhere in the thousands upon thousands of posts that I have made on the internet since 1999, where I have ever called anyone a "hack" for choosing one recording platform over another.
What you WILL find, is a record of my stating over and over again, that I CAN understand why someone would choose Alsihad. That one CAN certainly make a GREAT record on the platform. But that MOA seems more interested in planned obsolesence (which results in future sales) than on providing the best quality product they can for their loyal customers.
If you REALLY take a moment and READ what I've been saying these past three years (regarding HD), you will see that I am interested in prodding MOA to improve their product to sound better, and I'm interested in prodding the Record Industry into signing acts that have a chance of more than one hit song on one album. Signing acts that REQUIRE a computer, are generally not good bets as career acts.
I'm making legitimate critcisms of this product and this industry. Why anyone would take umbrage or try to tear me down for said criticisms is beyond me.
Mixerman
Post by: Mixerman on November 18, 2005, 03:38:10 PM
| R.Nicklaus wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 10:03 | ||||
Right, the guy is an idiot. Spare me. |
Tell me precisely what words in my post imply that I think CLA is an idiot.
Mixerman
Post by: rnicklaus on November 18, 2005, 03:42:05 PM
| Mixerman wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 12:38 | ||||||
Tell me precisely what words in my post imply that I think CLA is an idiot. Mixerman |
You didn't use those words, I did. You said he wouldn't know WHAT the masters were cut on nor would he care.
Like there are no conversations or tracks sheets or interest on his part about the project.
Post by: Ron Steele on November 18, 2005, 04:18:45 PM
What you WILL find, is a record of my stating over and over again, that I CAN understand why someone would choose Alsihad. That one CAN certainly make a GREAT record on the platform. But that MOA seems more interested in planned obsolesence (which results in future sales) than on providing the best quality product they can for their loyal customers.
If you REALLY take a moment and READ what I've been saying these past three years (regarding HD), you will see that I am interested in prodding MOA to improve their product to sound better, and I'm interested in prodding the Record Industry into signing acts that have a chance of more than one hit song on one album. Signing acts that REQUIRE a computer, are generally not good bets as career acts.
I'm making legitimate critcisms of this product and this industry. Why anyone would take umbrage or try to tear me down for said criticisms is beyond me.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
I never said you called anybody a hack, and I apologize for the use of that word. It was not meant to be an accusation.
But to further clarify the point I didn't make very well, I will do it with your point,
you said:
"I'm making legitimate criticisms of this product and this industry. Why anyone would take umbrage or try to tear me down for said criticisms is beyond me."
you also said:
"There is a world far beyond the scope of our own vision."
Yes, we all have our own legitimate thoughts and opinions that allow us to formulate our own individual choices and criticisms.
Post by: Your Ad Here! on November 18, 2005, 04:24:44 PM
I only bring this up to reiterate that you've made assumptions publicly that flaws exist in the PT system before and you were wrong.
It will be interesting to see if you're wrong again. If so, perhaps an acknowledgement of your wrongness would be in order this time.
If you're right you can feel sufficently rightious!
Either way thanks for pushing the issue and going through all the trouble to do the test tonight.
Post by: electrical on November 18, 2005, 05:19:19 PM
| Your Ad Here! wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 16:24 |
I don't recall you calling anyone a "hack". However, one thing you did do MM was comment on pop/click in PTs, blaming it initially on a technical flaw in the software. In the post, I believe I was suffient in proving that it was user error and ignorance about the methods in which PTs handles fades that caused the problem. |
To put this in perspective, I have very limited experience with ProTools, having been involved in sessions where it was used, but never using it myself. The one fade issue MM brought up, like the loss-of-low-end thing, are not uncommon complaints. He is not making one-off accusations here. He is an example of a working engineer who is encountering problems that other working engineers encounter.
I know this because I have heard other working engineers say precisely the same things about precisely the same problems.
One would do well to avoid personalizing these complaints. That's one of the reasons the Chicago test is being conducted. We want to see if there is a real problem there, removed from the personality of the complaining engineer.
Post by: The Resonater on November 18, 2005, 08:14:59 PM
Fletcher, IMHO, those were low blows leveled at Chris and his work, but I'm not going to engage myself in what I feel is a rather unprofessional attack which is off topic anyway. We're not even discussing Chris' "sound" here. My reason for bringing Chris into the discussion was not to use him or his work to validate the sound of Pro Tools, but rather to respond to your earlier statement that "many, many people" in L.A. were using Radar, and simply to say that, as arguably the busiest guy in the business, Chris is not working on any appreciable ( far, far less than 1%) amount of stuff originally done on Radar.
Mixerman, your point about there being scope outside of our own vision is totally valid. However, I think Randy Nicklaus said it best above, when he stated, "I still believe when someone does the volume of business from so many varied projects, they would have a huge chance to see a cross section of formats. It's a pretty wide scope." To elaborate, in most cases, we do end up knowing what formats were used along the way. This info comes to us either from dialog with the producer, notes on the track sheet, discussions with the engineer, etc etc. It is true that we ask that all files come in on PT, but there is typically a lot of dialog along the way to get the files into their proper format, if they're not already. So, I don't think that there's a lot going on that we're not seeing. And again, to be fair, Chris is probably as busy as any other single engineer out there. Between what I see on his projects and what I see when I work out at other studios or talk with other studio owners, etc., I just don't see any Radar work going on in the city. Doesn't mean it's not, just means I'm not seeing any, and with all the projects coming and going through here, you'd think I'd be seeing some.
Post by: Fletcher on November 18, 2005, 11:20:46 PM
| The Resonater wrote on Fri, 18 November 2005 20:14 |
Fletcher, IMHO, those were low blows leveled at Chris and his work, but I'm not going to engage myself in what I feel is a rather unprofessional attack which is off topic anyway. |
Here we experience a cultural difference... see, I'm from the East Coast, you're obviously from the West Coast.
On the East Coast we have this age old tradition of "breaking balls"... on the West Coast y'all have this age old tradition of taking everything too fucking seriously.
I was breaking balls.
Take a Valium.
Post by: danickstr on November 19, 2005, 11:27:01 AM
A lot of you gooroo mixers know too much for your own good. IMO some of the best mixes on country or pop/rock have really "radio friendly" eq curves that eliminate debates about bottom end. The mix engineer took it out or carved it up real good so as not to conflict with shitty bass response of the crap speakers upon which 90% of the human race listens to music. 250 Hz 3dB falloff seems to be a close approximation. A low e is 44 hz. A kick is just a bunch of air and overtones. what da phuck are yo trying to preserve down there? Club mix stuff to play on 18" woofers?
Post by: rnicklaus on November 19, 2005, 01:00:34 PM
| danickstr wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 08:27 |
more phucked-up mixes are done on PT than on any other system. but that does not mean that someone who cannot necessarily tell on which format the tracks were recorded is a hack mixer. A lot of you gooroo mixers know too much for your own good. IMO some of the best mixes on country or pop/rock have really "radio friendly" eq curves that eliminate debates about bottom end. The mix engineer took it out or carved it up real good so as not to conflict with shitty bass response of the crap speakers upon which 90% of the human race listens to music. 250 Hz 3dB falloff seems to be a close approximation. A low e is 44 hz. A kick is just a bunch of air and overtones. what da phuck are yo trying to preserve down there? Club mix stuff to play on 18" woofers? |
I believe this test was about using Pro Tools as a multi track recorder only - no in the box mixing or the entire mixer portion considered.
Post by: The Resonater on November 19, 2005, 05:22:03 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 04:20 | ||
Here we experience a cultural difference... see, I'm from the East Coast, you're obviously from the West Coast. On the East Coast we have this age old tradition of "breaking balls"... on the West Coast y'all have this age old tradition of taking everything too fucking seriously. I was breaking balls. Take a Valium. |
Fletcher,
You were right.
It's been about an hour since I popped the Valium, and it's pretty clear that you were just breaking balls and I was just overreacting. It's so weird, because when I was just normal ol' me (pre-Valium), your disparaging post about Chris seemed like a bean-town gear pimp talking smack about a multiple Grammy/Emmy/TEC winner. But damn if you're not right! Under the warm and fuzzy comforts of the Valium, it's so plain that it was just your east coast heritage allowing you to break the balls of an accomplished professional actually working in the music business. Silly me!
Thanks for the Valium suggestion. Once again, you were right!
John Van Nest
Resonate Music Studios
Post by: danickstr on November 19, 2005, 10:15:51 PM