Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 16 1 2 13 14 15 16
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 22
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 22
A great engineer (such as Roger Nichols or George Massenburg) can perform audio miracles with any format, analog or digital. I've mixed on API consoles while tracking on Radar, Euphonix consoles tracking on Studer D820 machines as well as mixing projects in ProTools that were tracked on a NEVE Capricorn and they all sound different.

I like/dislike various aspects of all formats,but when I mix it always comes down to the emotion(s) or feeling of the song that affect my final decisions about the mix.

This is a very interesting thread full of some pretty heated discussion about Protools fader positions and how a piano sounds with the fader down -40db in Nuendo with the monitors all the way up and how bad "Livin LaVida Loca" sounds mixed in Protools with lots of plugins.... Hmm? Why are these topics always the busiest in the forum? You never see 5000 posts about "how to get the best drum sound", or "my mixes suck in ProTools so I am going to sell PT and buy a Neve"

I will admit that visit these forums on occasion to find some helpful tips for recording, mixing, and new gear but I always end up stuck in some ranting topic that is trying to prove that ProTools sucks!! I'm sure this has been said before, but I must say it again.

B]IF YOU HATE WORKING WITH PROTOOLS WHY DON'T YOU SWITCH TO ANOTHER FORMAT?!![/B] There, I said it! Sell your God forsaken piece of crap PT rig and get something that makes you happy. Spending hours on the internet ranting to a bunch of other guys who like/dislike PT isn't going to make you any happier with your mixes!!!!! Sell the damn thing and buy something that you like.

If you like Elliot Shiener's mixes buy a Neve, if you like Tom/Chris Lord-Alge's mixes buy an SSL, if you like Roger Nichols' grammy winning mixes get an Oxford. But please get something other than the ProTools beast from hell with with the alledged inadequate mix buss and the math error problem with the fader at -40 with the monitors all the way up!!!

If any of you disliked Starbucks coffee would you continue to stop there every day for a cup? HELL NO!! Would you find an outlet on the internet to make public your anger with Starbucks?

Coffee drinkers forum:

Subject: George Massenburg featured in Starbucks add....

"Can you guys believe that George Massenburg likes Starbucks coffee"? "This is unbelievable!!"

"I buy Starbucks coffee every morning on my way to work. And it's such horrible coffee that has a S$%&#y taste, not like the old days when we cooked it over an open fire. That's when coffee was coffee."

This forum would contain irreverant conversation from Starbucks coffee drinkers debating the best way to mix their coffee with some "vintage" coffee so that "it doesn't suck so bad".

If your not happy with the results you are getting with your workstation/console/recorder, please change the way you work and stop trying to inform the rest of us about the tools we should use so that our mixes won't suck!!!!

Trust me, it is much easier to change the way you work or think than it is to change the opinions of those around you about the way they work or think.



Happy Mixing!!


"Would you buy furniture from unpainted Huffheims?"
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,025
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,025
Amen.


----------------------------
Phil Mann
http://www.wideblacksky.com
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 156
D
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
D
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 156
Very Well Put!!! Now let's move on!


Marti D. Humphrey C.A.S.
aka dr.sound
http://www.thedubstage.com
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by mixdude:
A great engineer (such as Roger Nichols or George Massenburg) can perform audio miracles with any format, analog or digital. I've mixed on API consoles while tracking on Radar, Euphonix consoles tracking on Studer D820 machines as well as mixing projects in ProTools that were tracked on a NEVE Capricorn and they all sound different.
:rolleyes: We know. We've already covered this. At least read the whole thread if you're going to come in here trashing it.

Quote:

I like/dislike various aspects of all formats,but when I mix it always comes down to the emotion(s) or feeling of the song that affect my final decisions about the mix.
And here we go again. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I know, dude. It's all about the music. Well gee, I'm a musician and a songwriter, I think I understand the importance of "the music" all too well. The main reason I originally learned to engineer was to have more control over the way "the music" sounded, which in my mind would make it better.

So if I want to talk about "the music" I go to the guitar forum or the songwriting forum or SSS. Around here, it's about "professional audio engineering."

Quote:

I will admit that visit these forums on occasion to find some helpful tips for recording, mixing, and new gear but I always end up stuck in some ranting topic that is trying to prove that ProTools sucks!! I'm sure this has been said before, but I must say it again.

B]IF YOU HATE WORKING WITH PROTOOLS WHY DON'T YOU SWITCH TO ANOTHER FORMAT?!!
There, I said it! Sell your God forsaken piece of crap PT rig and get something that makes you happy.[/b]
Actually, I don't own a PT rig, and I DO use other formats by personal choice, in my own project studio. However, if you work in a commercial studio you are going to use PT. If you turn on the radio you are going to hear PT. So, it is still worth discussing PT specifically if you don't live in a vacuum.

Quote:
Spending hours on the internet ranting to a bunch of other guys who like/dislike PT isn't going to make you any happier with your mixes!!!!!
Actually, it very well might, and THAT is why I'm here. If there are ways to discover and solve the problems that I hear with PT, that would make my mixes better, no?

Since most of us in the real world can't afford a Neve, and may get to work on one only occasionally, and even then may have clients who wish to use PT... this isn't a pointless discussion.

So let me ask YOU a question:

IF YOU HATE THESE KINDS OF THREADS SO MUCH THEN WHY DON'T YOU READ/POST ON A DIFFERENT ONE? There, I said it! Get off this godforsaken piece of crap thread and go find one that makes you happy. \:\)

It's a lot easier for you to ignore this thread and post somewhere else than for us to ignore PT.


Joined: May 2002
Posts: 315
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally posted by KSmith:

Maybe what I hear when faders start moving is just a subtle version of this extreme? The errors pile up as the fader goes down until it becomes utterly obvious.
Why would the errors pile up? Wouldn't a slight fader change involve just as complex math as a large fader change?

-R

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 315
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
[QUOTE] Lynn, are you saying there HAVE been differences found between PT's summing bus and others, given the same material and no processing?
THAT is a question worth asking. It shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate at all.

As far as my own test goes, I don't claim to make a blanket conclusion about all this, but I satisfied myself that if there is any summing difference between PT and DP it is inaudible and therefore I'm not going to worry about it.

-Rick

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,443
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,443
I have tested all the 32-bit Native apps for PC (Sonar, CubaseSX, Nuendo, Samplitude, Vegas, PTLE) and the only differences, between just a few, I get are very low level (-138 or lower) and I think it is primarily due to the fact that some start out with 32-bit files and some do not (just my guess). Never-the-less, no one can hear down to -138 or lower, so the differences are irrelevant. You have to do a difference analysis in Wavelab or similar and then multiply it by a large amount to be able to resolve the differences - they are mostly correlated to the original audio, i.e., they look and sound like very bad versions of the original, which indicates some thousandths of a db or so difference in the output. I can live with that.

I have not done this with PT HD since I don't have access to a system where I can run a test. It would be hard to imagine a significantly different result and if there was one, I find it really hard to believe at least one of the above competitors would not have already had a field day with it. But who knows until you try it.

Now when you start tweaking proprietary EQ and Dynamics, I'm sure they behave differently - I use mosly 3rd party plug-ins that are available to any of those, so they are at a level playing field sonicly for me.


Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital
http://www.bullmoondigital.com
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
[QUOTE] Lynn, are you saying there HAVE been differences found between PT's summing bus and others, given the same material and no processing?
THAT is a question worth asking. It shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate at all.

As far as my own test goes, I don't claim to make a blanket conclusion about all this, but I satisfied myself that if there is any summing difference between PT and DP it is inaudible and therefore I'm not going to worry about it.

-Rick
I'm in the process of designing a test right now that will allow comparison of any mixer, digital or analog console or DAW, that uses identical source files and then the printed versions of the mixes can be A/B'd side by side. I'll keep you posted on my progress.


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 315
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally posted by 3D Audio:
[QUOTE]]I'm in the process of designing a test right now that will allow comparison of any mixer, digital or analog console or DAW, that uses identical source files and then the printed versions of the mixes can be A/B'd side by side. I'll keep you posted on my progress.
I'm glad you're doing this. At the risk of being redundant I'm going to again give my own FWIW suggestions on how to do this simply.

Find a session in a DAW that sounds really great and which has enough color and dynamics to justify high fidelity playback. When the mix is where you want it to be, print all the effects and reverbs to 2 tracks. Then take each track, whether stereo or mono, and bounce it down as its own stereo track. That way a mono track will have panning information preserved. What you'll have then is a collection of stereo tracks that you can drag into any DAW, pan hard left and right, and leave at zero. Sum and compare.

Simple, eh?

-R

Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman:
Quote:
Originally posted by 3D Audio:
[QUOTE]]I'm in the process of designing a test right now that will allow comparison of any mixer, digital or analog console or DAW, that uses identical source files and then the printed versions of the mixes can be A/B'd side by side. I'll keep you posted on my progress.
I'm glad you're doing this. At the risk of being redundant I'm going to again give my own FWIW suggestions on how to do this simply......

(snip)

Simple, eh?
It sounds simple.


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
It's not that simple though is it. Which DAW, and it's also how things are summed togetehr.

I would take a very well recorded 2" recording. Transfer it to each individual DAW directly from 2". Use something that sounds great without verb.

Set all levels and pans the same on all systems.

Then listen to the end result.

This way, you can compare the original 2" to a variety of systems.

The only other way to do atest from the ground up. Would be to have a session with all these systems in the same room. Mult the mic pre's to the inputs of all daws simultaneously.


IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by Henchman:
The only other way to do a test from the ground up. Would be to have a session with all these systems in the same room. Mult the mic pre's to the inputs of all daws simultaneously.
Well that sounds easy enough. There's only what, 30 or so different platform, console and converter variables? Anybody got a studio that they can spare for a year or so? And players with lots of stamina?

No the converter part has already been scrutinized. At least by me. That's one variable that would be excluded from the test I am proposing.

This would deal purely with the combining of already digital source files. But doing so by whatever means you see fit.

Sounds like another mine field, eh?


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
Exactly. It's not so easy really. So what would you use to record?


IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by Henchman:
Exactly. It's not so easy really. So what would you use to record?
Possibly source material that I've already recorded on RADAR. Heck, if it's good enough for Fletcher };-) then it's good enough for me.

It would be good stuff that is well recorded, regardless of the original recording format. That's still TBD (to be determined).


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Sounds like a great idea Lynn. If you made some tracks available that anybody could download or receive on a CD, they could do tests on all sorts of different platforms and share the results. Very cool!

BTW I tried the "master fader at -40" trick on my lowly Yamaha AW4416, on a piano track. It's not the quietest track in the world because it's from a live jazz trio and there's drums bleeding into it... but the piano track sounds the same. More noise, but tone seems unaffected. I'd like to try it with some quieter material too, but it was interesting.

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,443
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,443
Lee, I'm glad you tried that fader test. Your results are more what I would expect. I have to try it as well when I get a second.

The only reason I can imagine you'd get a huge difference is if you pushed it so far down that you loose some of the bits that make up the original file - you'd have to push it down below it's quantization noise floor.

If the original recording is at -18dBFS on a 24bit system, you'd have 144dB-18dB = 126dB of dynamic range to work with - maybe it is a really great recording with 96dB of dynamic range. If so, pushing it down any more than 30dB (126-96) will start throwing away some of the good bits.

I think when anyone does this test, if they do not specify the kinds of parameters I mentioned, the information is incomplete and no real conclusions can be made.

The other thing I'm not clear on is what this is actually supposed to indicate. On any system - digital or analog, if you take a well recorded signal and attenuate it 40dB and then amplify it back to the original level, some sort of degredation is likely to occur at least more noise, no? This just seems like a way to show the importance of gain staging in any signal path.

What am I missing?


Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital
http://www.bullmoondigital.com
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
I just did this fader test thing with a sax as well as a fender rhodes recording.

I lowered the volume 40db on the Fairlight. And when I boost the faders and the digital ins on the Mackie, there's really no degradation whatsoever. And no artifacts added.


IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,443
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,443
Quote:
Originally posted by KSmith:
... turned the master fader down 40db, and made up the gain at the monitors.

Well try it like KSmith said - make up the gain at the Monitors.


Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital
http://www.bullmoondigital.com
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Yah Mark, I think you got it backward... send the signal to the Mackie at unity, turn down the master fader 40dB, then crank up the monitors and see what you hear.

Steve, good suggestion and I'll provide more details about the track I tested shortly.

I think we've all acknowledged that any system, analog or digital, is going to produce a degraded signal with a gain change that large. What makes it useful is how much it's degraded and in what way. If it simply adds noise, that's to be expected, but I don't think it should degrade the tone as much as some people are reporting that PT does.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
Wouldn't the degradation originate from the DAW though?


IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,443
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,443
Well it might, but I think to experiene what KS did, you need to do it his way. Then you know the "what or what not", next you find the "why or why not".


Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital
http://www.bullmoondigital.com
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 22
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 22
Whew!!! I just got up off of the floor after being blasted by Lee Flier.

WOW LEE. SEEMS LIKE YOU NEED TO EXTRACT AN INSECT FROM YOUR ANAL CAVITY.

I believe that I have just as much of a right if not more to post my opinion in this forum.

I also seem to remember that this entire topic was based upon George Massenburg's comments on the sound of the Digidesign 192 converters which I use daily as the front end to my PT HD3 rig.

I have read every post in this thread and there is actually some interesting stuff buried in here but many of the 440 posts are mindless, uninformed blabber.

However, I suppose everyone is entitled to thier opinion even if thier views and comparisons have no factual basis what so ever. I geuss that is why I decided to post earlier and ask people who have no reason or logic to bash ProTools or digital workstations in general to please re-evaluate what they are saying.

If you don't like Protools, fine.

If you would like to inform all of us regarding your dislike of protools that's ok too.

But at least take the time to arm yourself with some valid reasoning and examples concerning your agnst with protools and stop blabbering about how

"somebody should run a mix out of the Protools mix bus and then run the same tracks individually with the levels matched as close as they can get them into a Neve and see which one sounds the best"

This kind of comparison is useless because it can never be precise enough to draw any helpful conclusions about mixing in Protools. Not to mention, all comparisons must be done blind in an accurate listening environment with perfectly matched playback levels. Preferably with the judges having no prior knowledge at all concerning which formats or console outputs they were evaluating. Meaning, going into the process the judges are unaware of anything. They must simply listen to several versions of the same source material and make honest, unbiased opinions about what they are hearing.

I appreciate the tests that Lynn Fuston has done. I don't know all of the details of the mic shoot out or the preamp shoot out however from what I have read it sounds like he goes to great lengths to make very precise recorded comparisons.

Unless I've missed it somewhere among the hundreds of posts in this thread, I haven't read of anyone doing a proper comparison of anything. If I am wrong please point me to this information because I would love to read it or listen to any available material.

It is my belief that in the right hands/ears Protools HD is capable of achieving outstanding sonic results. It is an invaluable tool for thousands of highly skilled professional audio engineers around the world including myself. I also believe that most of us at the professional level who make Protools our weapon of choice do so through an informed desicion making process and not because we feel pressured to use protools because everyone else is. It is a great tool!

If your opinion differs from mine I will respectfully read your post and hope to learn something from it. But if your going to spew forth nonsense such as

Originally posted by Henchman

I have one more question for all those conducting these listening tests.
HAve you taken a real band with real drums etc., that was recorded on 2". Then put that in Pro-Tools. Now, on a large console, put up a bais mix of the 2". Copy that to the channels coming out of pro-Tools into the same desk. And then do the same inside the Pro-Tools system.
So now you can switch between 2"/Console mix. PT/Console mix. PT/PTmixer mix.
That, to me, would be a valid test to hear what the differences are.

_____________________
No offense Henchman, but that's just plain silly.

Good luck with the fader at -40 and the monitors wide open test. I would be interested to learn what this test is trying to solve or prove. Could someone please elaberate on the usefullness of this test?


"Would you buy furniture from unpainted Huffheims?"
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally posted by mixdude:

"somebody should run a mix out of the Protools mix bus and then run the same tracks individually with the levels matched as close as they can get them into a Neve and see which one sounds the best"
Just to make my opinion clear, and YMMV.

The reason that this will never be an objective test is that the 'analog' path will usually be identifiable. My opinion is that if one is able to identify that path, one will - because of 1> the emotional component, 2> peer pressure (very few care to admit in public what they hear and what they don't hear), & 3> the politics of ProTools/digital vs warm-and-cuddly-and-traditional analog-anything - always be able to choose what serves one's argument.

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 371
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 371
George. You will probably not answer this but I'm as interested in your development as I'm in your points of view, so please comment on this 1997 Sound-On-Sound interview.

SOS: What would you look for in a studio?

GM: Same things that I'm looking for - the ability to allow the performance without getting in its way. Good maintenance. A good board. I generally gravitate towards 8068s and 8078s - older Rupert Neve consoles that I know would work.

GM: These days, I'm back to recording analog, after 15 years of resisting by trying to squeeze good performance out of digital. And analog gives you something more to listen to - I can hear the sound of a hi-hat again! When digital came along, we realized that we had to change the way we worked, and our expectations of what we heard. But I'm heading back to analog.

/Poelo

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,324
V
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
V
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,324
Quote:
Originally posted by gm:
The reason that this will never be an objective test is that the 'analog' path will usually be identifiable. ....

George
Absolute Sidebar:

In 2000, I was recording a quad of shows in Hawaii, two (back to back) shows in Honululu, one in Maui and the other ...I don't remember.

Recordings were done from FOH to a MX2424. I recorded the band check on day one. On day two, I patched the returns in the FOH console, and asked the band to "play".

Their road manager (more hands on than any of us would like) started tweaking knobs, etc, completely oblivious to the MX2424 on his left, in clear view.

Yeah, by the 3rd hour of them getting there (Hawaii) , I was sick and tired of how great the Euphonix R1 sounded in comparision to everything else.

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally posted by Poelo:
George, [...] please comment on this 1997 Sound-On-Sound interview.

SOS: What would you look for in a studio?

GM: Same things that I'm looking for - the ability to allow the performance without getting in its way. Good maintenance. A good board. I generally gravitate towards 8068s and 8078s - older Rupert Neve consoles that I know would work.

GM: These days, I'm back to recording analog, after 15 years of resisting by trying to squeeze good performance out of digital. And analog gives you something more to listen to - I can hear the sound of a hi-hat again! When digital came along, we realized that we had to change the way we worked, and our expectations of what we heard. But I'm heading back to analog."

/Poelo
Easy, a moment of weakness while mixing a Journey CD. And, yes the hi-hat did sound different.

Times & technologies change. Pursuing better digital has been a long, hard road.

Early in the '80's we had to tolerate the first generation of digital, and by and large, it was abyssmal. Sony's original converters were truly awful, measuring less than 14bits precision new, and then aging to something far worse. Filters weren't well understood and the designs were hideous. Evidently noone was listening. Philips had stated in their introductory ad that the sound of a CD represented,"...perfect sound, forever." It was neither.

I had gotten my hands on an UltraAnalog 18 bit D/A part in...oh, 1985 and it sounded like a good direction to go in. But the industry was really, really slow to respond (Digidesign resisted 24 bits forever). Still, with a Mitsubish X-850 (pretty good Analogic converters) and Bruce Jackson's "gentle" filters, I made a couple of what-I-consider-to-be good recordings in the middle 80's. But I have always gone back and forth between digital and analog storage to make sure I had my head on straight.

By the time I did Lyle Lovett "JJR" & James Taylor, "Live" it was clear to me that even with the compromises of 48/16 I could do some things musically that I couldn't do before, and answering those issues had to be the priority.

Now we have all of these new tools that we need to make artistic sense of. The last ones on board will always be the reactionaries, longing for the safety and comfort of a time long past and soon to be forgotten.

Love it or hate it, the Peter Gabriel record is, in my never ever so humble opinion, a beacon into the future of recorded music.

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by gm:
Quote:
Originally posted by mixdude:

"somebody should run a mix out of the Protools mix bus and then run the same tracks individually with the levels matched as close as they can get them into a Neve and see which one sounds the best"
Just to make my opinion clear, and YMMV.

The reason that this will never be an objective test is that the 'analog' path will usually be identifiable. My opinion is that if one is able to identify that path, one will - because of 1> the emotional component, 2> peer pressure (very few care to admit in public what they hear and what they don't hear), & 3> the politics of ProTools/digital vs warm-and-cuddly-and-traditional analog-anything - always be able to choose what serves one's argument.

George
That was the most interesting part of the PT vs. Neve CD. Everyone that wanted to voice their opinion and wager a guess had 30 days to do so before anyone knew which was which. There was no cheating allowed, though some did call me up and ask before they made a public statement.

I've said it before. If you are forced to judge only with your ears, sometimes you will surprise yourself. Like George said, very few people are brave enough to admit what they can and can't hear publicly.

Which I guess comes full circle to the origination of this post. George made an honest statement about what he heard.

Since we've come back to where we started, can we get off this carousel now?


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by gm:
[QUOTE]Times & technologies change. Pursuing better digital has been a long, hard road.
Truer words were never spoken.

You learn the tools and work around the limitations.


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Mixdude, of course you have every right to voice your opinion here... but you seemed to be saying that others DON'T have that right when you stormed in here saying things like "If your not happy with the results you are getting with your workstation/console/recorder, please change the way you work and stop trying to inform the rest of us about the tools we should use so that our mixes won't suck!!!!" If you have a problem with people like Henchman, maybe you should make it clear who you're talking to instead of dumping on the whole thread.

Otherwise, I think I'm done with this thread anyway, as I'm having an increasingly hard time understanding what anyone is saying. I've repeatedly said that I don't think "Pro Tools sucks," I simply have not been as satisfied with PT mixes vs. analog mixes, and would like to know why. If other people have found ways to mitigate the problems I hear, I'd love to know about them, and I sincerely mean that. If it is a limitation of the product itself, I'd love to know what those limitations are so I can decide whether or not I can live with them.

George and several others have made disparaging remarks about tests that are not objective, people clinging to their "warm and fuzzy" feelings about analog, etc. I've been asking the following questions in this thread and so far no one has answered:

1) How can "objective" tests be developed that will compare PT to other digital environments, which will take real world factors into account? If such a test can be developed, I would love to participate.

2) Seeing as I haven't seen any confirmation that truly objective testing CAN be done, I also have to ask what's wrong with subjective testing? Lynn's PT vs. Neve CD, mic shootouts, and pre shootouts did not claim to be strictly objective and really could not be, but many people found them useful in making their own, subjective decisions as to what they want to use. In the real world, many of the decisions we make during a session are very subjective, so I think that subjective listening tests are just as important as objective ones.

3) If enough people still prefer the sound of analog over digital, even if it is for "emotional" or other subjective reasons, what's so difficult about accepting that? I would think that if nothing else, it would create an entire market for gear designers (as it already is doing with things like the FATSO, Dangerous 2-bus and probably even the RADAR). As I mentioned earlier, nobody disparages guitar players who prefer tube amps over solid state and vice versa... some old technology IS better than new, to some people's ears... so why the smug attitude?

I'm outta here for now... if anybody actually cares to post any useful answers to these questions I'm all ears... and thanks to Lynn for your offer to send me the CD's, I'm very much looking forward to it and I WILL give them an unbiased listen. Honestly and truly, I don't care what medium I use if it sounds good to me, period.

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
[...] I've been asking the following questions in this thread and so far no one has answered:

1) How can "objective" tests be developed that will compare PT to other digital environments, which will take real world factors into account? If such a test can be developed, I would love to participate.

I think Lynn and other have proposed such a test...Lynn?

My thought would be to generalize the digital mixing (ProTools or anyone) environment to it's mathematical basics: technology (float vs fixed), word width in the multiply/accumulator and in the path to plug-ins being the main two, and do listening eval tests on these.

In fact there's alot of listening work going on with dither and it's place in a mixing architecture.
Quote:

2) Seeing as I haven't seen any confirmation that truly objective testing CAN be done, I also have to ask what's wrong with subjective testing? Lynn's PT vs. Neve CD, mic shootouts, and pre shootouts did not claim to be strictly objective and really could not be, but many people found them useful in making their own, subjective decisions as to what they want to use. In the real world, many of the decisions we make during a session are very subjective, so I think that subjective listening tests are just as important as objective ones.

Nothing's wrong with loving what you've got. Nothing's wrong with knowing that you're going to get better results from your gear if you know it and love it than if you distrust it.

I suppose what I haven't said here is that I was as dissatisfied with analog recording as anything else in it's day. It was the only option, and many of us were really frustrated because it wasn't addressing any of the things we wanted to work on (huge intermodulation distortion, among other flaws) .

I'm willing to admit that I've made scores of really shitty records using any number of different technologies. I've done enough bad work (and maybe some good work) to know in my own heart what I need to do to make a great recording. Now, the fact that record companies, not to mention artists, aren't really willing to invest in my idea of a great recording means that I have to work the way these people expect me to work. That's o.k. I understand. And I'll make the best of it - I have a kid to put through college.

The best work I do I do for free anyway.

But another thing comes to mind. You know what the really subjective test is, Lee? Pass your ear (and heart) over a lifetime of your recording work; preferably wait for 20 years on any given work to let the negative experiences with that work to be forgotten. And just listen.
Quote:

3) If enough people still prefer the sound of analog over digital, even if it is for "emotional" or other subjective reasons, what's so difficult about accepting that? I would think that if nothing else, it would create an entire market for gear designers (as it already is doing with things like the FATSO, Dangerous 2-bus and probably even the RADAR). As I mentioned earlier, nobody disparagess guitar players who prefer tube amps over solid state and vice versa... some old technology IS better than new, to some people's ears... so why the smug attitude?

I am NOT smug. I'm passionate. And I agree: some old technology is profoundly great, and unimproveable. Why, I know this one EQ that's been manufactured more or less unchanged for, oh, about 20-30 years.

I believe we've got to make these new tools sound good. The only way to do that is to work with them.
Quote:


I'm outta here for now... if anybody actually cares to post any useful answers to these questions I'm all ears... and thanks to Lynn for your offer to send me the CD's, I'm very much looking forward to it and I WILL give them an unbiased listen. Honestly and truly, I don't care what medium I use if it sounds good to me, period.
Good. Yeah, we basically agree.

I think we've exhausted this one...

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Page 15 of 16 1 2 13 14 15 16

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5