MusicPlayer Forums: Favorable reviews got you down? Read Mixerman's letter to Mix magazine

You are not logged in. [Log In] MusicPlayer.com » Forums » Our Archives » George Massenburg's Professional Recording Forum » Favorable reviews got you down? Read Mixerman's letter to Mix magazine

Page 1 of 8

Last »

Topic Options

#509804 - 03/08/04 04:19 AM

Favorable reviews got you down? Read Mixerman's letter to Mix magazine

Mixerman
Senior Member

Registered: 10/20/01
Posts: 159
Loc: Los Angeles,CA,UNITED STATES

Offline

It appears to me that Mix Magazine has brought the inherent hypocrisy of accepting advertising monies from the companies whose products one reviews to new heights. Mix is now using Digidesign specs to rebuff their own reviewer’s statements about another company’s product line – a product line designed to improve DAW performance in general. Confused?

Read my letter to Mix magazine which they have refused to print in its current form.

Dear Mix,

I read the in-depth review of the Dangerous product line in your October issue. Although I felt the review had an overabundance of technical information, it was well written, on point regarding the shortcomings of DAWs in general, and very clear on how the Dangerous product line can drastically improve such shortcomings. Had I never read another Mix article again in my life, I would have walked away with a positive image of your magazine.

Unfortunately, I read the December issue.

In the December issue, you managed to somehow “retract” your reviewer’s statements on DAWs, which were about as controversial as stating the sky is blue. You replaced these general statements with the technical specs of one particular manufacturer’s DAW. Given that, I found your “retractions” to be about as unbiased as Scott Peterson’s Mom.

Let’s evaluate these “retractions.”

You first “retracted” the following: “Digital mixing and summing inside your DAW to stereo outputs requires that you do not overload the internal digital mixing bus by lowering all the mixer faders.”

Your “retraction” begins: “According to Digidesign’s documentation….”

According to Digidesign’s documentation? The statement was made about DAWs in general -- not about a Digidesign product.

In the very next sentence of the original article, the reviewer states: “When any track fader's level is internally reduced, its digital resolution is also reduced.”

Your retraction begins: “Digidesign states that the mixer inside Pro Tools is….”

Again, where does the original statement discuss Digidesign or its product?

Perhaps the digital resolution is not reduced in all DAWs, but it has been well established within the recording community that internally reducing a track fader will greatly reduce its audio quality. I suspect this was the intention of the reviewer’s statement and would have probably served as a more suitable “retraction” than citing Digidesign’s documentation.

Next the reviewer states: “Spreading out a mix over many stems and direct outputs lets you maintain hotter digital levels for higher resolution, resulting in a better-sounding mix with increased depth, image width and headroom, and less distortion.”

Your retraction starts: “In reality, the 2-Bus' distortion spec is….” and concludes: “…which means that passing the 192's output through the Dangerous 2-Bus increases the distortion….”

Once again, you relate the “retraction” specifically to Digidesign’s product. Even my Mom knows that spreading a mix out over stems will greatly increase the quality of audio from a DAW. However, in this “retraction,” you discard the overall truthfulness of the statement to focus on distortion specs. For this, I have two words. “Distortion, dismortion!” People pay enormous sums of money for consoles with far higher distortion levels than what is being “retracted” here.

All these “retractions” made me curious. So, I went back to look at the review. There is not one reference to Digidesign where any of these statements is concerned. The closest reference to a Digidesign product is some four paragraphs later that merely offers an example of how to hook up the Dangerous 2-Bus. Yet Mix prints a “retraction” to these statements, citing Digidesign documentation.

This begs two questions: Why do you have and where did you get the Digidesign documentation that you quoted? And more importantly, why are you printing what amounts to a Digidesign sales pitch in the guise of a “retraction?”

From what I understand, the Dangerous 2-Bus can be used to improve other systems such as Nuendo, Digital Performer, Paris, and Logic among others. Are you planning to print other DAW manufacturer- slanted “retractions” relating to these products soon?

Contrary to not-so-popular opinion, DAW does not stand for Digidesign’s Audio Workstation. So, may I suggest that the next time a reviewer makes a reasonable and self-evident statement about DAWs in general (that’s Digital Audio Workstation), you should consider foregoing “retractions” that reek of technical, hot-button, sales-pitch babble that directly benefits one of your major advertisers. It’s bad for your cred.

The bottom line is this. The Dangerous products are well designed, sound great, and can greatly improve the enjoyment of one’s DAW. And seeing as the only measuring device that I use is actually attached to the sides of my head, you’ll just have to take my word on that.

Mixerman

For the back story, comments, more pointed questions, and even a humorous little tidbit about myself, clik the link below my sig.

Mixerman
http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=11672

_________________________
The Womb
MMyspace