The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Where are we up to with Digital?
Old 2nd November 2002
  #61
Lives for gear
 
groundcontrol's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon
Sonically, I tried the HD192 converters at 192kHz and in a blind test I preferred the Apogees at 48kHz and a Trak2 at 96kHz.
Don't forget that in most published reports so far, there seems to be a point of almost dimishing returns where high sampling rates are concerned. In many listening tests, testers felt that there was little gained in switching from 96kHz to 192kHz and that in fact it sounded almost worst. (It even includes tests conducted on the much revered DCS converters.) So the 192 i/o might well subjectively sound better at 96k than at 192k... (I'm not suggesting that it may sound better than Prism's though, mainly better than it does at 192k...)

Personally I haven't done critical comparison tests involving high sampling rates yet as I have been caught up in a bunch of mixing projects that were done at 44.1k since I got my HD upgrade. I'm looking forward to set up my own blind test soon though...
Old 2nd November 2002
  #62
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisso



If this was a musicians forum I'd be banging on about how great all the new technologies are. Power to the people and all that. But it's a 'high end' equipment forum and therefore I don't think you should complain if a few people say they don't think digital is there yet.
I'm certainly not complaining. People can say what they want as long as they are willing to have what they say held up to some scrutiny. If you want uncritical boosterism there are other forums for that.

Rick Krizman
KrizManic Music
Old 2nd November 2002
  #63
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon
Much as it simplifies life for music studios who only need to buy PT to satisfy client demand in terms of digital multitracking nowadays, I am not favorable to the idea of one system becoming the dominant one in the market to such an extent that options are reduced.

With respect to MM, I wouldn't call it rape and pillage, more Rage Against the Machine or one guy against the system. In any case, because of what he heard and felt and said about it, he probably caught enough misery from all the digi-dudes everywhere; no need to add to it. BTW I felt his PT propos were considerably more reasonable and mainstream in his Bitch Slap studio diary. I own and use PT since years and years and still agree with him -- not necessarily the -6dB details, but in general.
I dunno, there seems to be plenty of options to PT. But if you work a lot and hate latency and love system stability and good functionality, choosing PT is a no brainer. If somebody comes up with something else just as good for less money, or which sounds DEMONSTRABLY better, people will jump on it.

As far as Mixerman goes, he didn't really suffer any misery from the digi-dudes. I believe he relished every moment on his road to stardom. Yup, the -6 db stuff was bull****, but so was the "move-a-fader-wreck-the-sound rant" and all the other invented reasons that PT allegedly sounds inferior, none of which could be demonstrated. It's not really interesting to me that he, and you for that matter, happen to prefer something else. What is interesting to me is why one system might in fact be better than another. And the answer to that lies in the details.

Rick Krizman
KrizManic Music
Old 2nd November 2002
  #64
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisso



If this was a musicians forum I'd be banging on about how great all the new technologies are. Power to the people and all that. But it's a 'high end' equipment forum and therefore I don't think you should complain if a few people say they don't think digital is there yet.
I'm certainly not complaining. People can say what they want as long as they are willing to have what they say held up to some scrutiny. If you want uncritical boosterism there are other forums for that.

Rick Krizman
KrizManic Music
Old 2nd November 2002
  #65
Gear Head
 
Lars FM's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Crisso wrote: In older productions (I'm talking 70's to early 80's) drums sounded like drums.
These days they sound anything but, electronic gizmos like filters and loads of ambience.

I had a listen at my old (1. and 2.) Suzi Quatro albums last week. They were produced by Nicky Chinn & Mike Chapman, engineered by Pete Coleman and mastered at EMI on Abbey road. Now the hit from the first album "Can the can" has this very distinct Tom intro, which is what glam rock is all about, that could be the reason for Marilyn Manson using the exact same intro on "beautiful people" from Antichrist Superstar. . Now will anybody here claim that the drums on the Suzi Quatro song sound better than the drums on that Marilyn Manson song?Just compare the two songs, the rest of the MM CD sucks big time IMO. The MM was a PT session. You can't even compare the two, the original sound like anything but drums, while the rip-off sound great.

I'm only trying to say, that you can make analog sound like **** and make great records with digital (and that i agree with Alphajerk that most major acts recordings from the 60's/70's didn't sound THAT good compared to today's standard)
FWIW, i still like analog much better than digital until its editing time.
Old 2nd November 2002
  #66
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman

If somebody comes up with something else just as good for less money, or which sounds DEMONSTRABLY better, people will jump on it.
RADAR?
Old 2nd November 2002
  #67
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
I dunno, there seems to be plenty of options to PT. But if you work a lot and hate latency and love system stability and good functionality, choosing PT is a no brainer. If somebody comes up with something else just as good for less money, or which sounds DEMONSTRABLY better, people will jump on it.
Rick, it's just not as simple as you describe it. Think about it for a second. Here's a hint: Installed user base.

Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
Yup, the -6 db stuff was bull****, but so was the "move-a-fader-wreck-the-sound rant" and all the other invented reasons that PT allegedly sounds inferior
I agree with MM. PT sound, in MixPlus and previous versions, goes downhill as soon as a virtual fader is moved from unity. I haven't tried listening to the sound of fader gain math in PT HD yet.

Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
What is interesting to me is why one system might in fact be better than another. And the answer to that lies in the details.
Have you tried the R1, Nuendo+Apogee, or Radar24 w/ Nyquist converters...

What formats do you regularly use beside ProTools that you find inferior...

I am curious; are you a PT owner, PT dealer, or just an enthusiastic PT user?
Old 4th November 2002
  #68
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon



I agree with MM. PT sound, in MixPlus and previous versions, goes downhill as soon as a virtual fader is moved from unity. I haven't tried listening to the sound of fader gain math in PT HD yet.

Have you tried the R1, Nuendo+Apogee, or Radar24 w/ Nyquist converters...

What formats do you regularly use beside ProTools that you find inferior...

I am curious; are you a PT owner, PT dealer, or just an enthusiastic PT user?
I'm really curious as to how you guys are reaching your conclusions about fader math. I tried a little experiment in MixPlus where I compared faders at zero with faders moved by the smallest amount possible and there just wasn't any difference. Likewise I generated a mix where I moved the faders drastic amounts and compensated with plugins, in both Protools and Digital Performer, and there was no perceivable difference. I don't claim to be a goldern ears, but neither am I deaf.

As a composer, keyboardist and producer I am in fact a PTHD owner as well as an owner of a modest Trident 24/JH-24 recording setup in a smallish mostly personal-use studio. Whether or not I am a"an enthusiastic PT user" depends more about how I feel about the music I'm working on on any given day than my feelings about the gear. And no, I'm not a dealer. I don't just work at my own place either, and have worked in most of the large L.A. studios with small bands to full orchestras, and have worked abroad at CTS and Air Lyndhurst in London. BTW, my stuff has all paid for itself and there's no big investment to justify. If you think Protools is expensive try shopping for grand pianos, or Santa Monica real estate for that matter.

What formats have I worked on? Over the last 25 years, enough analog combinations to know that I usually prefer Neve/Studer combinations but don't mind mixing with an SSL. I've experienced the history of digital converters from my Mirage sampler up to early grey market DAT machines, ADATs, DA-88'a, large tape based digital Sony's, Panasonic 3700, Apogee AD-1000, all the Digi stuff (new and old), Apogee AD-8000, TC Finalizer, various Prisms for classical work, Tascam MX-2424 . . . I'm surely forgetting something. For platforms I currently use PTHD and Digital Performer, usually in TDM mode, but in the early 80's I was fooling around on Synclaviers and had a Rhodes Chroma with an Apple IIe for sequencing and a Linn drum. I once scored a whole movie with a Linn sequencer. Anyhow, of all those things I've worked on, the ones I really didn't like were the big digital Sony's, ADAT's, pre-HD Digi converters and the Tascam MX2424.

RADAR is not a workstation, so it slots into these discussion in a slightly different way, but I'd guess it sounds great and I have nothing negative to say about it. The biggest determinant of a RADAR system would be what console you put it through. I like Apogees and I'd guess they sound the same with Nuendo as they do with anything else. As far as Nuendo goes, I have no need for it at this point in time, as DP and PT are working out fine for me and I'm not aware of anything Nuendo offers that I need. And I prefer the no latency and solid build of a TDM system. I don't know what R1 is.

For the record, I'm not recommending that anybody go get Protools. Or anything else for that matter. Do what you like. (I'm writing everything now with a harmonica and a three string strum stick.) I'm always interested in any new tool that will improve my work which is why I like to try to separate the wheat from the chaff in some of these discussions. If workstation***** really is the ****, I want to be the first in line.

Sorry to go on so long, but you asked.

Rick Krizman
KrizManic Music
Old 4th November 2002
  #69
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
i played on micheals R1... REALLY NICE controller for it. but it runs on windoze, hmmmm. we transferred my DP tracks to it. i cant say i was any happier working on the R1 that just staying in DP. in fact, i would of rather been in DP, but due to how his studio was setup... i dont think that was possible.

i did get a kick out of using the R1 just to be using it. but sonically, it made no difference.
Old 4th November 2002
  #70
VIP
 
mwagener's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
. . . I don't know what R1 is. . .
This is the Euphonix R-1. It's a 24 bit / 96 K hard disk recorder. No DSP or plug-ins, just a straight forward digital multitrack with great editing capabilities. When I bought it (July 2000), the choice was between 2 RADARs (Otari at the time) and the R-1. RADAR was about $ 50,000 for a 48 track setup and the R-1 about $ 65,000, so I decided for the R-1 because all 48 tracks (or more) are in one box and I love the sound. I also like the remote, reminds me of the old Studer remotes. It's been running since September 2000 almost every day (except Sundays) for about 8 - 12 hours, no crashes, no lost data. One hardware problem which was replaced by a new unit the next (Saturday) morning. Great machine.



Old 4th November 2002
  #71
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I used an R1 about 2 years ago, the first one Ihad ever seen. We had to lock 2 analog machines and the song start was at 00:00:05:00, no leader, Smpte start at 00:00:00:00.
That bad boy locked and recorded at 96K in under 2 seconds.
Sounds great, but it is to be used just a tape machine basically.
Old 4th November 2002
  #72
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
Off topic:

I wanted that hilarious smiley for GS but was warned that it used to much memory! Great to see it again! Thanks e-cue!

Old 4th November 2002
  #73
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
Many folks regard the converters in the Euphonics as 'the best arouind'
Old 4th November 2002
  #74
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
I'm really curious as to how you guys are reaching your conclusions about fader math.
Hi Rick,

Thanks for your post!

About the fader math, I came to my conclusions from listening / double blind testing in my control room, comparing a PT audio fader at unity versus, say, down 1dB at the fader plus various plug-ins adding 1dB back, while listening to a lead vocal.

Both paths D/Aed from the same AD8000 output to the same monitor path.

I agree with you though...it doesn't matter what I hear or like. For, amidst a sea of opinions, there is only one thing you or I can trust & believe -- what we personally hear for ourselves.
Old 4th November 2002
  #75
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon


About the fader math, I came to my conclusions from listening / double blind testing in my control room, comparing a PT audio fader at unity versus, say, down 1dB at the fader plus various plug-ins adding 1dB back, while listening to a lead vocal.

Both paths D/Aed from the same AD8000 output to the same monitor path.

Well I'm going to try it again, then, because for the life of me I could not hear any difference. Do you have a site available where I could post a brief vocal snippet that people could download and check out for themselves?

Rick
Old 4th November 2002
  #76
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
For the website, we'll have to call on the expertise of Jules and our supreme GS webmistress Meg.

FWIW, while we're on the topic, have you guys noticed how often the word "analog" comes up on Charles' DAW mixing guest forum...which btw is looking like a great forum for the DAW crowd if you haven't checked it out.

"Analog" is probably the reference sound/concept/vibe/magic (be it analog tape or analog consoles/outboard) that people are trying to get on their DAW that is causing them the most difficulty.

When was the last time that someone posted that they were looking for that "digital" sound...
Old 4th November 2002
  #77
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon
For the website, we'll have to call on the expertise of Jules and our supreme GS webmistress Meg.

Okay, I took a few minutes and set up some comparison files. Here's what I have--maybe you and Jules could figure out how to make it available.

I have a female singer into a nice U-47, with just a touch of Cranesong STC-8 compression, into an Apogee AD-8000 and into Protools at 24/44.1 I then created new files of the following types.: One is the vocal with no fader move. One is the vocal up a few db, bussed to an aux track where it is pulled down by the same amount. And one is the vocal sent through a serial chain of 16 aux busses, with the faders alternately up and then down to compensate. In other words, 16 instances of math volume processing.

These files (short snippets) are 2.8 meg each, and I have two examples, for a total of 6 files. Jon, could I e-mail these to you one at a time and could you have a listen? Jules, any way to put this up somewhere?

Obviously, what you do is drag the files into your workstation of choice and compare however you wish. I'd be most interested in everyone's findings, and won't share my own thoughts at first.

Anybody curious?

Rick Krizman
KrizManic Music
Old 4th November 2002
  #78
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon
"Analog" is probably the reference sound/concept/vibe/magic (be it analog tape or analog consoles/outboard) that people are trying to get on their DAW that is causing them the most difficulty.

When was the last time that someone posted that they were looking for that "digital" sound...
thats because analog came first. if yet another format comes along in 40 years that threatens to replace digital... you might possibly see people wondering how to make that new format sound more digital.

not to mention you dont have to get that "digital" sound... its already there... although i have heard many analog recordings loaded with hiss i wish had that "digital" sound.
Old 4th November 2002
  #79
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
yeah, hiss on analog....... anyone who claims it isn't a pain in the ass is either full of **** or Jon (or both!)



Old 4th November 2002
  #80
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
i would go so far to say running at 30ips/using dolby/etc would be attempt to sound "digital"
Old 4th November 2002
  #81
Lives for gear
 
Ol' Betsey's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Well, I guess somebody like Alec Empire could be said to be looking for that "digital" sound. Despite the fact that's it's a f***ed up digital sound is neither here nor there but I can't imagine him insisting on a SSL/Studer to get some of those noises. I may be wrong but analog "warmth" doesn't SEEM to be too high on his list of priorities.

And for what it's worth, I do know SOME people that actually like to track to digital so that tape doesn't impart it's "sound" on to their recordings.

Go figure...
Old 4th November 2002
  #82
Jax
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisso

I'm just totally bored with all that ambience crashing about.
The drum sound on your average Steely Dan record is phenomonal IMO.
Maybe we can agree that there are good and bad examples in both era's?
I guess maybe not.....
You're right. We can't agree on what is a good drum sound. What one person hears as good versus another person is rather subject to personal opinion, don't you think?

For instance, Steely Dan drum sounds? If you packed the drummer in a foam lined crate with just enough room to play, you would achieve about the same deadness.

It doesn't bother me that you or anyone would be "bored with all that ambience crashing about", but drums were meant to excite the space around them, IMO. Nothing better hearing the set roar and become larger than life. Hard to do inside a sponge.
Old 5th November 2002
  #83
Jax
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk
youve GOT to be kidding me about drums sounding better in the daze of old... they sounded like ****E! most older recordings sound like ****. i would LOVE for hendrix to have an album with modern sounds... i HATE the sonics of his albums, love the ideas... hate the sound. the who's drums sound gawd awful like cardboard... zepplin, nah... i dont think so. stones... give me a break, i have heard tunes where proportions were so far out of whack you'd think keith richards mixed them himself while smacked to the brim. i could go on and on.
It's better that Hendrix was often (not always) captured in a vortex of clashing, wildly "out" recording contexts, IMO. I don't think I would enjoy his music as much if it was done by today's standards. It wouldn't fit. Can you say Joe Satriani? Keep your dumbass producers away from Hendrix. The modern recording industry would have ruined him.

I won't talk Zep drums with alpha, that's a lost cause, but suffice it to say I disagree. My only complaint would be the kick for most of their tunes.

Charlie Watts' 70's snare sounds in particular, are pretty freakin' rocking though. And they would work for a lot of tunes I hear these days.
Old 5th November 2002
  #84
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Jules
yeah, hiss on analog....... anyone who claims it isn't a pain in the ass is either full of **** or Jon (or both!)



Jules, I find hiss to be a non issue nowadays.

With tapes and machines from the 70s/early 80s on consoles without automation, yes, it was a pain. With modern analog tapes (GP9, 900) and recent machines (A820, A827, etc), the noise level has been very considerably reduced.

The only effort required is automating tracks to mute when nothing's playing...which is generally left for the assistant to do so he gets some time on the console while the engineer takes a coffee break.

If you hear any hiss in big-room mixes off analog tape nowadays, it was probably desired as an effect.
Old 5th November 2002
  #85
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
These files (short snippets) are 2.8 meg each, and I have two examples, for a total of 6 files. Jon, could I e-mail these to you one at a time and could you have a listen? Jules, any way to put this up somewhere?
Rick, sounds like fun. If you're willing to mail me a CD-R with the audio files, I'll import them into PT and listen. My internet connection is way too slow for 18 meg.
Old 5th November 2002
  #86
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
jon, you need better monitors then... i can EASILY detect hiss in the quietest of analog recordings. i can also easily detect the gates cutting in and out... hell, even with digital, i detect the hiss within the analog signal chains.

i find it annoying and distractive to the listening experience.
Old 5th November 2002
  #87
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Jax


It's better that Hendrix was often (not always) captured in a vortex of clashing, wildly "out" recording contexts, IMO. I don't think I would enjoy his music as much if it was done by today's standards. It wouldn't fit. Can you say Joe Satriani? Keep your dumbass producers away from Hendrix.
joe satriani? you have GOT to be kidding...
\

and if jimi was alive today and pushing things like he was back then, holy ****. i just wish he had a better engineer during the time he was [halfway] on this earth.

i didnt say production, i said engineering and SONICS. his recordings are horrendous sonically.
Old 5th November 2002
  #88
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
AJ wrote: i can EASILY detect hiss in the quietest of analog recordings. i can also easily detect the gates cutting in and out... hell, even with digital, i detect the hiss within the analog signal chains.

Any mix examples, just for fun?

I'm not obsessed with hiss...but you shouldn't hear noticeable tape hiss and gates/mutes opening/closing in my mixes unless it's desired. One mix that surprised me was Puddle of Mudd's "Blurry" which has a long, noticeable hiss near the beginning of the song; did Wallace leave that on purpose? I would imagine yes.

Tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday I'm mixing a couple of rock tracks that don't belong to a record company...one track off analog, the other off PT with the key 22 tracks transfered by me to analog...maybe if the band agrees I can post an excerpt or two. Jules, is there a way to do this on GS?
Old 5th November 2002
  #89
Jax
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
[QUOTE]Originally posted by alphajerk


joe satriani? you have GOT to be kidding...


Yeah, that was sarcasm.

and if jimi was alive today and pushing things like he was back then, holy ****. i just wish he had a better engineer during the time he was [halfway] on this earth.

The recording industry is a lot bigger and uglier than it was in Hendrix's day. I believe that's a big part of the reason we don't get to hear anyone like Hendrix (not just guitarists, I mean). He would be relegated to doing largely what the record company wants. Watered down hits. Maybe a little cynical, but I think it's true. Or he would be a dinosaur like Dylan, and each he put out a new album, he'd be loved for a few moments, then forgotten about.

But the fact is, music would likely be different if Hendrix had survived. All of this is of course, moot.
Old 5th November 2002
  #90
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Jax
Charlie Watts' 70's snare sounds in particular, are pretty freakin' rocking though. And they would work for a lot of tunes I hear these days.
Just listened to the Stones today in the CR...it's been awhile...checking out the Forty Licks CD.

I agree with you on Watt's 70's snare sounds...pretty cool. I like those 70's snares better for the Stones than the 80's big snares and 90's smashed snares.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 29258
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 15929 views: 1524107
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 175904
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump