Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 17 18
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 395
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 395
Balanced or unbalanced isn't going to make -that- much of a difference. Not to a kick drum, anyway. I patch them into balanced inserts all the time, they can handle it. The AD8000SE is up to the task of handling a kick drum, for sure. I'd rather mix with 24 550's than 24 Focusrite software eq's, which were the best ones available at the time.

Basically I just think that whatever there was to be gained from using analog anything was lost and then some on the way out and back in. I also remember tweazing the API's thinking "this doesn't sound like an API." I did make use of the AMS and Eventide reverbs though. They didn't sound like themselves either but the only other option was software...

I got a call from a client not too long ago. He said he wants to use 24-track tape for his next record. "I'm fucking SICK of Pro Tools, man! It makes everything sounds like a Pepsi commercial."

Cheers!

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
P
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally posted by KSmith:
I got a call from a client not too long ago. He said he wants to use 24-track tape for his next record. "I'm fucking SICK of Pro Tools, man! It makes everything sounds like a Pepsi commercial."
Well, one thing that the ProTools movement has allowed is for many engineers who really don't know "engineering" to become the guys in use. I blame a lot of it on bad engineering rather than blaming the equipment. In that sense, ProTools has taken a bit of a bad rap, in my opinion.

popSTaR

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
Quote:
Originally posted by popstar:
Well, one thing that the ProTools movement has allowed is for many engineers who really don't know "engineering" to become the guys in use. I blame a lot of it on bad engineering rather than blaming the equipment. In that sense, ProTools has taken a bit of a bad rap, in my opinion.

popSTaR
That's what happens when you elevate a simple job of editing etc. into something "special". And all these guys get engineering and production gigs based on the fact that they are listed as an "engineer" when in reality they ran a pro-tools rig.
Running a Pro-Tools rig a should be the job of the assistant. ANd get the interns to do the editing.


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: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by KSmith:

Unfortunately, it sounded quite bad! Seriously, the first mix I setup with all the API's in the path. Nothing I could do would make it sound right, though. Out of desperation I disabled all the external inserts and it sounded MUCH better right away. Better being a relative term, of course. I finished the mix with plug-in's.

The moral of that story is that no matter how many analog things you patch into a computer it's still going to sound like a computer. I didn't expect all that API stuff to actually hurt but it did, go figure.
Yeah, I've had the same experience... inserting analog stuff into tracks on a PT rig (or really any digital mixing environment that I've tried) just doesn't do the job, even after you futz around correcting for latency and all that crap. Yes, the 888's were a weak link, and I had high hopes that HD would be better in that respect (the converters are certainly better), but it really isn't.

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 487
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 487
IS there anyone here mixing with PT Mix/Hd connected to Dm2000/02R 96k consoles?
What about the feel (controller + bonus eqs, reverbs) and final result?


Eng. Al
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
C
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
C
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
Quote:
posted by Mixerman:
For the record, the Lifehouse album was Produced by Ron Aniello, a personal friend of mine. It was not recorded to Radar as you repeatedly, and mistakenly claim. It was recorded to 2" and edited in Pro Tools.
Mixerman,

I distinctly remember you posting on the DUC that you recorded those tracks to a Radar. It was on one of the "PTHD Bass-Lite" threads.

Your "Bass-Lite" extravaganza...whatever happened to that (speaking of testing platforms)?? You had claimed that HD was missing amplitude in the bottom octave, and dramatically demanded a Radar be brought in to track with instead. You had indicated in response to a post on a DUC thread relating to that debacle that it was indeed the Lifehouse record that was in question. Remember? Someone posted something to the effect that "I was listening to the new Lifehouse CD, and it sounded -5dB around 60Hz." And you replied that the tracks had been transferred to the Radar, so that couldn't be the case.

If I have time, I'll go to the DUC, do a search, find that thread, and repost it here, if that will cure your amnesia.

Quote:
From what I understand, the audio CD that you buy is also a video CD as well. This also degrades sound quality significantly.
Bullshit. Who told you that? That is a completely erroneous statement. Duel-layer CDs have been around for years, and sound-degradation issues are non-existent. The ones and zeroes on the audio layer are in no way affected by the other layers. This is complete and unadulterated bullshit you are peddling here with that statement. I own dozens of CDs that have video imbedded, and the recordings that sound great on other formats sound identical on the duel-layer CDs. The recordings that suck still suck. DVDs movies are duel-audio/video layered discs. The video on DVDs do not affect the audio quality on those discs, UNLESS THEY ARE DEFECTIVE.

What planet are you from where you think you can get away with a bullshit statement like that? Oh, yeah, I forgot, this is "Planet Mixerman," and we're all just living in it.

Get a grip, indeed.

Quote:
Mastering records very loud can degrade the sonic quality of a CD. You could take a great mix and make it an awful one by mastering a record super loud. Just take it to our local LA king'o'loud butcher and he will be sure to make mincemeat out of it (I don't expect you to know who that is).
That's correct, I don't KNOW who you're talking about, but I could certainly guess, or better still ask my older brother who works in LA and has probably brushed by you in the hallways more times than would make you feel comfortable if you knew who he was.

Then again, if the source audio the mastering engineer has to work with doesn't suck, it's kinda hard for even him to create some god-awful sounding CDs. Either way, it's very professional of you to pass the responsibility on to the other guy when a record tanks. Very LA of you, I should say.

Quote:
Perhaps Brendon's mixes are great, and it was the Mastering that destroyed the sound quality for you. I don't know. Hard to say where the breakdown occurred.
Hard to say where the breakdown occurred??? Whoah, Betty...

I'm amazed to see you publicly admit that. If you were a fraction of the guy you claim to be, I'd think you would have figured that out a long time ago. But hey, these forums are a chance for us to find out who we're REALLY dealing with, right? On that level, thanks for the info.

Quote:
What I do know is that you have once again managed to point out the obvious. Regardless of the equipment used, there are many points in the process that can degrade the quality of the final sound.
This has to do with Fletcher's opinon, how?
Until Fletcher posts that opinion (if he indeed has one), I haven't the foggiest idea. So far, you've been responding to a post that I addressed to Fletcher. Now you want me to talk through you to him? Who the fuck am I talking to??? Not that I really give a fuck at this stage.

Quote:
Hell, if it weren't for opinions, informed or otherwise, you'd have nothing worthwhile to say as you certainly don't have your facts straight.
"Facts" according to who? As you've demonstrated over the years, on Planet Mixerman, "facts" are about as concrete as dysentary, and the bullshit piles up so high and so fast, one would need an Apache helicopter to stay above it.

Since you are so suddenly fond of "facts," Mixerman, why don't you divulge for us the "facts" you found in your "PTHD Bass-Lite" dog and pony show?

Because until then, your credibility in the realm of the "factual" is nil, nada, nothing, zilch.

Quote:
And to think people get paid close to six figures to mix a record in a way that displeases Curve.
I sincerely hope for your sake that you stashed all that loot away while that gravy train was in effect, because the evolving economics of this industry is going to seriously impact on that scenario. Remember: The guys at Enron had their little day in the sun before the rug got yanked out from under them. Keep a close eye on that rug, Mixerman. Between your feet going into the air and your ass hitting the ground, you will remember this conversation.

Fond memories,


Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,358
E
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,358
Bob Clearmountain is right. He says PT has not the sound of a console, and i add that it hasn't even the sound of DP or Logic and Oxford and Capricorn and Scenaria and Fairlight


\:\) Features Are Not An Opinion. \:\)
(John Hope, 2003)
http://johnhope.blogspot.com/

Addresse:
UIPLPPICDSS
Ufficio Internazionale Per La Presa Per Il Culo Dei Sbruffoni Statunitensi
Att. Tua Sorella
Codice Mavapigliatelindomo
Pirla Chi Legge
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 163
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 163

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1
----my track record would indicate that I would probably be screaming "bullshit" from the mountain top... gotta give me that one.----

Yeah right, if you're not selling it you mean....

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,242
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally posted by Mixerman:
The HD low end energy dip was there in my tests. I wouldn't lie about such a thing as that would leave me open to a law suit. I have plenty of witnesses that I was forthright and diligent in my tests. I laid out precisely how I did the tests, and I expressed the opinions of myself and everyone else that was there from the runner to the Producer.

Notice I said opinions (there's that pesky little word again.). That's because it was a listening test. Not a measuring test. I don't care what anything measures at. I only test by listening, and I provided my opinion of what I heard, along with the opinion of others that were there.
I have to jump on the saddle here and ride Curve's back for a while. Ever since the HD came out with its 192 converters, I noticed this low end looseness. I avoid working in PTHD just because of this. I may be wrong, but it seems to be related to the way the converter stages are reclocked. The stereo image collapses and the low end gets loose. I have tested this several times (every time they announce an upgrade or whenever I get the chance to try it on a new computer/converter combination) with the same results every time. The only way I've found a work-around this thing is to use the digi interfaces in all-digital mode through a digital console (call it DMX, OXFR3, DM2000) so the phase coherency is handled by the board itself.

To close this argument, I have to say that the best way to get a really big solid bottom coming from a PTHD is to see that annoying new J-Lo's video. Sounds like if it was recorded from a CasioTone.


"There's no right, there's no wrong. There's only popular opinion" Jeffrey Goines
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

Then again, if the source audio the mastering engineer has to work with doesn't suck, it's kinda hard for even him to create some god-awful sounding CDs.
Again, you are completely wrong. I have heard some stuff mixed by some really good guys. before mastering it sounded great. After big-time expensive mastering guy got hold of it, it sounded like dogshit.


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 2002
Posts: 751
P
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
Curve,

Of course, it was the Lifehouse album upon which Mixerman proclaimed the "bass-light" attributes of PTHD. Too many of us in Los Angeles know all the people and circumstances involved. It was a shame that he chose not to fulfill his promises of backing up his accusations with a test at which several other trusted parties (including Digi) could be present to verify his earlier claims, but in the end, MM most likely realized that he had kind of backed himself in a corner and that the re-test road could be fraught with revelations which might not be helpful to his engineering career and/or his credibility.

He's likely also distancing himself from the Lifehouse record because as we know, it didn't perform well and he had made the point many times to thrust his chest into the air proclaiming that he was recording the followup to a "multiplatinum" album. In such situations, if the followup doesn't perform well, said engineer goes from being the engineer to take the band higher to being the engineer who tanked the band's career. We all know that what happened to the record most likely has NOTHING to do with the engineering (I actually thought the record sounded pretty good), but that won't stop anyone from pointing the finger when trying to afix blame. Anyway, we all have a tendency to thrust our chests into the air from time to time and sometimes that just doesn't work out so well. I know because I've made the mistake myself and I'm sure just about everyone up here has too.

I agree with Mixerman's basic assertion that RADAR seems to "sound better" out of the box than PT generally does, and I'm kind of sorry that RADAR couldn't have progressed to being a more fully featured product. To my ears, it does seem quite similar sonically to the 2" analog tape that I love. Sadly, it's a dead platform in the face of the PT juggernaut.

I was a bit let down when Mixerman did not perform the followup test simply because it would have been interesting to confirm (or not) his earlier methodry to see what was causing his loss of low end...was it indeed PTHD? Was their some faulty equipment there? Would the test turn out to be unrepeatable? I wouldn't have cared whether the results met with Mixerman's assertions or not (I was not rooting for him to fail, so to speak), but I surely would have cared about people on all sides coming together to find out if there was (or is) a problem in that regard. I haven't heard that particular problem with PTHD myself, but that doesn't mean that in certain situations such a problem wouldn't become apparent. For that, I was sad that the re-test wasn't performed.

poPSTAr

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 163
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally posted by popstar:
Curve,

Of course, it was the Lifehouse album upon which Mixerman proclaimed the "bass-light" attributes of PTHD. Too many of us in Los Angeles know all the people and circumstances involved. It was a shame that he chose not to fulfill his promises of backing up his accusations with a test at which several other trusted parties (including Digi) could be present to verify his earlier claims, but in the end, MM most likely realized that he had kind of backed himself in a corner and that the re-test road could be fraught with revelations which might not be helpful to his engineering career and/or his credibility.

He's likely also distancing himself from the Lifehouse record because as we know, it didn't perform well and he had made the point many times to thrust his chest into the air proclaiming that he was recording the followup to a "multiplatinum" album. In such situations, if the followup doesn't perform well, said engineer goes from being the engineer to take the band higher to being the engineer who tanked the band's career. We all know that what happened to the record most likely has NOTHING to do with the engineering (I actually thought the record sounded pretty good), but that won't stop anyone from pointing the finger when trying to afix blame. Anyway, we all have a tendency to thrust our chests into the air from time to time and sometimes that just doesn't work out so well. I know because I've made the mistake myself and I'm sure just about everyone up here has too.

I agree with Mixerman's basic assertion that RADAR seems to "sound better" out of the box than PT generally does, and I'm kind of sorry that RADAR couldn't have progressed to being a more fully featured product. To my ears, it does seem quite similar sonically to the 2" analog tape that I love. Sadly, it's a dead platform in the face of the PT juggernaut.

I was a bit let down when Mixerman did not perform the followup test simply because it would have been interesting to confirm (or not) his earlier methodry to see what was causing his loss of low end...was it indeed PTHD? Was their some faulty equipment there? Would the test turn out to be unrepeatable? I wouldn't have cared whether the results met with Mixerman's assertions or not (I was not rooting for him to fail, so to speak), but I surely would have cared about people on all sides coming together to find out if there was (or is) a problem in that regard. I haven't heard that particular problem with PTHD myself, but that doesn't mean that in certain situations such a problem wouldn't become apparent. For that, I was sad that the re-test wasn't performed.

poPSTAr
Gee, all this coming from a guy [full-frontal ad hominem attack modified by admin].

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005374;p=5#000174

In the URL above you posted the following:

"I hear ya loud and clear. My last mix had322 background vocals and the producer wanted it mixed just like the Beach Boys...IN MONO! It didn't help that he also had 97 tracks of drums and 88 stereo synth pads. Over 100 guitar passes, too. We had 3 G4's locked up to make this happen and I had Larrabee strap together all their 9K's at North, then sent that audio via ISDN to the K Series at West for final tweaking. Man, I just love this digital stuff...

poPStaR "

There are no K's at North. And there is no ISDN line at Larrabee. They hand deliver drives between facilities. This session as you have outlined above never occurred. There is not even a session that was even remotely close. There is only one person at Larabee that would assist on a session of this size, and he says that this session never occurred. So the above quote is an absolute fabrication. If you would like to argue otherwise, then I suggest you unveil yourself in order to prove it.

Do the letters JV have any signifigance to you popstar? I know that they do, and I suggest you stop putting up lies, not only about myself (particualrly about myself), but about your involvement in nonexistent sessions.

You're a fraud.

Enjoy,

Mixerman

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
P
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally posted by Mixerman:
[QUOTE]There are no K's at North. And there is no ISDN line at Larrabee. They hand deliver drives between facilities. This session as youoputlined above never occurred. There is not even a session that was even remotely close. There si only one person at Larabee that would assist on a session of this size, and he says that this session never occurred. So the above quote is an absolute fabrication. If you would like to argue otherwise, then I suggest you unveil yourself in order to prove it.

Do the letters JV have any signifigance to you popstar? I know that they do, and I suggest you stop putting up lies, not only about myself (particualrly about myself), but about your involvement in nonexistent sessions.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Of course the session in question was an absolute fabrication. 322 BG's? 100 guitars? 88 Stereo synths? 97 drums? You believed that? It was placed there to make fun of the many guys on that thread talking about how many tracks their sessions had.

JV? Just validated?

popStaR

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
All I can say is I was at AES sitting right next to Fletcher in the front row listening to Lynn's ADC comp test in the ADAM room when I heard the soundstage and a bit of lowend collapse right in front of my ears. There were 20 other people standing behind us that heard the same thing and outwardly voiced the same opinion. We had no idea which convertors we were listening to. They were in groups of 3. Lynn would tell us what they were after each set was played. As soon as the 192 came on, which was in about the 6th group, I said out loud, "That's the 192". Everyone behind me said "The whole sound stage collapsed!" Fletcher and I looked at each other shaking our heads.

Lynn then read off the group of 3 and the 192 was indeed the suspect. I not only immediately identified it by the soundstage but also by the slight, forward sounding, midrange bump it possesses. The Radar convertors were in about the 3rd group all together. The general consensus was the Nyquist sounded the best of the 3 but they all sounded very full and natural. There was a BIG difference between the 192 and Radar convertors. I didn't post this before out of respect for Lynn since this was a "private" listening of this disk.

As I've said before, I don't know what the deal is but there's a difference. I have Radar Nyquist, PTHD, 2" and 1" mix down. We just finished a major project, several of the songs were mixed from PTHD and several from Radar. Both were mixed through the 9098i. The Radar, hands down, sounded much better. I don't know why. I just know what I hear.

As for MM, we talked on the phone a year a go about his results. I found him to have no reason to lie about his results. I saw no agenda, except, in his beef with Digi releasing a product they say is the "best of the best", you'll never need anything again, give us all your money, oh and by the way, we're going to replace it in two years and take all your money again.

You can buy a GML, CraneSong, Empirical Labs, etc.. and, although there may be some updates along the way, the products are excellent and withstand the test of time. A few of these manufactures will just give you the latest and greatest updates for free plus shipping of course. This just happened with my SLAM! and a while back with my HEDD192. MM doens't like the way Digi leads us along like a bunch of puppy dogs. If it sounded great, not just tolerable, there would be no beef. I've spent a LOT of money with Digi and I'm still not happy. I can't say that about any of my other gear.

Thanks,
Ted.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
P
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally posted by TC4542@cox.net:
All I can say is I was at AES sitting right next to Fletcher in the front row listening to Lynn's ADC comp test in the ADAM room when I heard the soundstage and a bit of lowend collapse right in front of my ears. There were 20 other people standing behind us that heard the same thing and outwardly voiced the same opinion. We had no idea which convertors we were listening to. They were in groups of 3. Lynn would tell us what they were after each set was played. As soon as the 192 came on, which was in about the 6th group, I said out loud, "That's the 192". Everyone behind me said "The whole sound stage collapsed!" Fletcher and I looked at each other shaking our heads.

Lynn then read off the group of 3 and the 192 was indeed the suspect. I not only immediately identified it by the soundstage but also by the slight, forward sounding, midrange bump it possesses. The Radar convertors were in about the 3rd group all together. The general consensus was the Nyquist sounded the best of the 3 but they all sounded very full and natural. There was a BIG difference between the 192 and Radar convertors. I didn't post this before out of respect for Lynn since this was a "private" listening of this disk.

As I've said before, I don't know what the deal is but there's a difference. I have Radar Nyquist, PTHD, 2" and 1" mix down. We just finished a major project, several of the songs were mixed from PTHD and several from Radar. Both were mixed through the 9098i. The Radar, hands down, sounded much better. I don't know why. I just know what I hear.

Thanks,
Ted.
Ted, was this test presented in an AES paper? I was not aware of the test happening or I would have made the effort to attend. Which convertors seemed to have won the most votes for being "best"?

poPSTar

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
A
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
Quote:
Of course the session in question was an absolute fabrication. 322 BG's? 100 guitars? 88 Stereo synths? 97 drums? You believed that? It was placed there to make fun of the many guys on that thread talking about how many tracks their sessions had.
*LOOOOL*....I have to agree..even I did see that reply, as nothing more than a "funny reply"...*GGG*

Sorry that just seem too obvius to me..but what do I know..!!!... \:D

Kind regards

Peter


Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.>>S
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
No, it was informal. We were just asked to listen. We only heard about 8 groups or so off the disc. I really liked Radar the best. I was looking at it anyway. I ended up buying it immediately following the listen. There were a lot of good sounding converters in the bunch, some surprising all of us. I don't really remember much beyond that but the disc is out so you can have a listen. I will say the playback was on the new ADAM Mastering Towers which were stellar. They made it very easy to hear the differences. One thing is for sure, we ALL agreed on the 192.

Thanks,
Ted.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 163
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally posted by popstar:
Of course the session in question was an absolute fabrication. 322 BG's? 100 guitars? 88 Stereo synths? 97 drums? You believed that? It was placed there to make fun of the many guys on that thread talking about how many tracks their sessions had.

popStaR
Interesting. It didn't come off that way to me.

Be seeing you.

Mixerman

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
P
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally posted by TC4542@cox.net:
No, it was informal. We were just asked to listen. We only heard about 8 groups or so off the disc. I really liked Radar the best. I was looking at it anyway. I ended up buying it immediately following the listen. There were a lot of good sounding converters in the bunch, some surprising all of us. I don't really remember much beyond that but the disc is out so you can have a listen. I will say the playback was on the new ADAM Mastering Towers which were stellar. They made it very easy to hear the differences. One thing is for sure, we ALL agreed on the 192.

Thanks,
Ted.
Ted,

Here's a question which you might be able to comment on. Have you ever used your RADAR as a front end for PTHD, and if so, what were your feelings about that? Like I mentioned, I also feel that RADAR sounds excellent but its lack of flexibility (in editing), its lack of MIDI capabilities and the fact that it's really not too much in use in Los Angeles make it impractical for my purposes.

What do you (or anyone else) think about using RADAR or any other excellent quality convertors as a front end for PTHD? Does doing so make PTHD sound "as good" as a RADAR?

Actually, Ted, in just re-reading your post, here's a question...if you were mixing half the songs from PTHD and half from RADAR, why didn't you route the PT audio out through the RADAR D/A for mixing?

pOPStaR

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 241
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 241
Bob's still right.

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
I don't have the digital i/os for Radar up and going yet. I'm getting ready to do exactly what you're talking about coming up on a project. I will post my results.

Thanks,
Ted.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
P
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally posted by TC4542@cox.net:
I don't have the digital i/os for Radar up and going yet. I'm getting ready to do exactly what you're talking about coming up on a project. I will post my results.

Thanks,
Ted.
I think that many people will be interested in your results. Hopefully we'd be closer to answering the question...

"Is it the 192's (or old 888's) which make ProTools sound less than we'd hope for?"

If the answer to that question is yes, then we'd know what we need to do. And if that turned out to be the case, I wonder if we'd say "ProTools sounds excellent as long as you're using good third party convertors (in other words, just having the audio in PT format does not f*ck it up)."

Could that really be?

popSTar

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
I think they're people on the forum that have already done this. I'm very curious also. PTHD is more pleasing going through this desk for sure but the Radar just sounds great. PTHD, or what ever it's going to be called, will get there. It's just gonna cost us all a lot of money first. I hate being a beta tester.

I will let you know what I hear running through Radar first.

Hey Mike T,
Come to think of it, aren't you doing the above PT/Radar thing?

Thanks,
Ted.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Popstar, that could be, but as I said, I've done plenty of PT sessions with Apogee converters and had the same experiences as Kevin reports, when using analog gear to mix in PT. I might add too that this problem really isn't specific to PT, I haven't personally worked with ANY digital mixing environment or converter where it doesn't degrade the sound to patch in your favorite analog gear. Maybe the Oxford doesn't do that, I haven't worked on one. But so far it seems to me that using a lot of great analog EQ and comps requires an analog desk to sound good.

For that reason I end up using mostly plugins when doing PT mixes, which sucks because I'm usually not entirely happy with those and use as few as possible. Whenever possible I use the outboard gear when tracking - I've gotten pretty brave about compressing going to disk for example, because I know that it'll sound a lot better than trying to insert the comp in the mix. Sometimes I even do that with EQ. I might patch one or two tracks into an analog EQ during mixdown, but only if I really need the horsepower of that EQ to fix a problem track, or am going for a really radical effect.

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 241
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally posted by TC4542@cox.net:

Hey Mike T,
Come to think of it, aren't you doing the above PT/Radar thing?

Thanks,
Ted.
fuck yeah, It's the only way I can tolerate PT. But I still can't stand the fucking mixer.
:p

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
P
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike Tholen:
[QUOTE]fuck yeah, It's the only way I can tolerate PT. But I still can't stand the fucking mixer.
:p
So, you're going A/D into ProTools through a RADAR system? Or D/A? What do you think about it...

ps

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,411
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,411
Wow... Popstar... I have to say you are indeed surfing the bleeding edge of all that's cool... so RADAR is dead because a whole bunch of sheep swallowed the Kool-Aid? Damn I'm glad to be one of the rebel forces that hasn't given in to the dark side... but just curious... whacha gonna do when the death star implodes?

As for the 'test' Ted was talking about earlier... yep, I was there. It was pretty damn impressive. Funny thing... that advance "exposition" of the 3D Audio AD/CD led me to call iZ Technologies and request a set of Nyquist [96k] cards to shoot out against my S-Nyquist [192] cards... seeing that I run at 44.1 I didn't think it would matter that much... but it did. I found the Nyquist cards more musical sounding for my applications.

I have indeed used RADAR as a front and back end for not only Pro-sTools but for Nuendo as well. There are a couple of guys I work with that have the spiritual compunction that they have to 'edit in Alsihad'... which is fine and dandy as long as I don't have to sit through it

I have to say that the P-sT HD system does indeed sound better than the earlier systems even when using a real converter set... it's quite a leap forward. The system sounds even better when they employ none of the functions that permit the alteration of gain or summing... but sometimes compomises must be made.

The last thing I did that involved a ShitiDesign system was recorded through RADAR converters, with the final "edited" tracks bounced back into RADAR via 'Broadcast Wave Files'... the overdubs were done in RADAR [because it's a shit load easier when doing punches, etc.], then flown back over to P-sT via BWF.

The mix was done with level, mute and panning control done in Alsihad, sent through the RADAR D/A converters to a Dangerous 2 buss and recorded to a Masterlink via Lavry Engineering converters.

It actually sounded like a record... which is more than I can say for sooooo soooo many of the CD's my daughters bring home... but hey, if working on a flawed tool set puts food on your table... far be it from me to piss on your lawn.

One of the very few things I absolutely love about my studio is that it was actually built as a "not for profit" facility, one of the things I love about my current engineering gigs is that if I don't like the music, or the people involved, I can bail at any time... the beauty of being a pimp is that if affords me the opportunity to treat engineering as a 'semi-lucrative hobby'...

I can totally understand how someone who has to succumb to the pressures of "the machine" could whole heartedly embrace the technological flavor of the month... much in the same way that the Sony 3324 was considered the pinnacle of professional audio [until the 3324A, then the 3324S, then the 3348, then the 3348 HR, etc. showed up].

Me... I'll just live in my dumbass unfashionable world where I can give a flying fuck about audio over fashion... where the emotion of the musical experience is more important than whether every fuckin' drum hit falls into mechanized perfection... to each their own... and so it goes.


Fletcher
Mercenary Audio

Roscoe Ambel once said:
Pro-Tools is to audio what fluorescent is to light
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 515
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 515
Just my 0.02. In a paper presented by dCS ltd at the 20th Tonnmeistertagung in 1998, they noticed interesting things occurring using 192KHz samplerates: - excellent quality, very good separation of Reverb/Room acoustics from instrument output __but_ bass can appear light and slightly out of time, and stereo image can be strong but widened.
According to the authors, the widening of the stereo image is related to the percieved problems in the bass end and filter impulse or transientresponse may ne significant in correct image formation, along with proper bass perception.
I believe BC when he says he can hear a PT mix. Finally, go look at http://www.digido.com, Bob Katz excellent site. He has a lot to say about fixed point busses, and I agree with him. Moving a fader degrades the signal. It must. Take the following example. Assume a level of 0.75. Attenuate by 50% and you get 0.375. Attenuate by 50% again and you get 0.1875. If you were using a fixed point system, those last 2 places would have been rounded up or down. Okay, so what's the difference? Simple - those bits we just ignored/rounded up or down or just threw away, contain valuable information. Digital wordlengths expand, and of our DAW doesn't expand this word too, we will have degradation.
Nothing you will notice on most tests, badly designed & implemented as they are, but taken cumulatively over a whole mix the total of errors will be huge & very audible.
Think about it.....

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletcher:
One of the very few things I absolutely love about my studio is that it was actually built as a "not for profit" facility, one of the things I love about my current engineering gigs is that if I don't like the music, or the people involved, I can bail at any time... the beauty of being a pimp is that if affords me the opportunity to treat engineering as a 'semi-lucrative hobby'...
The only way to fly if you can do it!

This has been my approach too.

It's good to be the king!!! \:D


miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
Page 3 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 17 18

Moderated by  gm 

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