Quantcast
PT fader problems? Jon? - Page 3 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
PT fader problems? Jon?
Old 10th January 2003
  #61
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
"............when 5.1 wax came out"

Old 10th January 2003
  #62
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
So when the wax cylinder came out did you re-buy all your wire recordings as wax?

-R
no, but the media tranfer for project compatability was a complete PITA.
Old 10th January 2003
  #63
Jax
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
While I think Jon is being more than a bit dodgy about just plain listening to the files, at the same time it is a little mysterious as to why RKrizman is so interested in gettting Jon's "feedback" regarding them. I have to agree with Jon that there seems to be a personal agenda on RKrizman's part. It's even gotten kinda creepy at this point. Jon may well be wondering just what you hope to prove or gain by getting specifically his feedback on what really amounts to an issue that people are well aware of, and either feel they have to work around or don't.

So why is it so important to you, RKrizman, to hear what Jon has to say on this "issue"?



IOW, time to end this episode of Scooby Doo.
Old 10th January 2003
  #64
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
because he is so outspoken about it. i know i am waiting to hear if he has stuck his foot in his mouth.
Old 10th January 2003
  #65
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Well, AJ, that has the merit of being honest.

Thanks, Jax.

All the same, I'm curious to hear the CD.
Old 10th January 2003
  #66
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
Hmmm this is quite similar to Mixerman's reaction leading up to Lynn Fuston's PT / Neve mixing test CD. MM became rather agitated in his posts, refuted the test conditions, demanded extra info not provided in the 'rules' and generally trashed around like an alligator in a noose right up until the very time he had to give his answer.

Despite attempting to lay down a foundation that the basis of the test was technically incompetent and an answer potentially worthless, he finally stepped up to bat and DID his listening test - in a friends mastering suite - and got it totally right!

(I flunked it!)

heh

It was all very dramaaaaaaaaaaatic..

Nome say'n?

And good forum fun!

Old 11th January 2003
  #67
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon
If you are not doing a statistically-relevant test, with a minimum of conclusive merit, then it is clear that you are not acting with scientific motives but rather merely personal ones.
Well I'm sending it to Alphajerk as well. Maybe he can deal with it without getting his shorts all in a knot.

-R
Old 11th January 2003
  #68
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Jax
While I think Jon is being more than a bit dodgy about just plain listening to the files, at the same time it is a little mysterious as to why RKrizman is so interested in gettting Jon's "feedback" regarding them. I have to agree with Jon that there seems to be a personal agenda on RKrizman's part. It's even gotten kinda creepy at this point. Jon may well be wondering just what you hope to prove or gain by getting specifically his feedback on what really amounts to an issue that people are well aware of, and either feel they have to work around or don't.

So why is it so important to you, RKrizman, to hear what Jon has to say on this "issue"?



IOW, time to end this episode of Scooby Doo.
Jax, there's nothing mysterious about it. In a previous thread, some time ago, Jon made an assertion to the effect that it was well a known fact that moving a PT fader damages the sound, and that he had had an experience of a lead vocal being diminished somehow because he moved the PT fader. I challenged that assertion and the usual meaningless "everybody with ears knows that..."discussion resulted. So when I realized how easy it was to check this assertion, namely by running a vocal through a series of PT faders and moving them up and down, I created some files, initially for my own information. I offered to e-mail them to Jon but he said he didn't have a fast modem and invited me to mail him a CD. Since then he's had plenty of time to give me a lot of condescending **** and rehash the same old arguments, but hasn't had the time to actually listen to the files that I took the trouble to send him.

To diminish the mystery further, my finding was that after running a lead vocal through a series of 16 aux inputs, with the faders up and down, I could not hear a difference between it and the original file with no fader move. However, I am curious as to whether Jon can, since he has been so adamant about his opinions.

If you went to this trouble wouldn't you feel a little iced too?

-R
Old 11th January 2003
  #69
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
so have you tried to null the two files by reversing the polarity on one? is it a full null if you have?
Old 11th January 2003
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Renie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk
so have you tried to null the two files by reversing the polarity on one? is it a full null if you have?
I read from Speer on the DUC yesterday that this test misses out vital subtle information and is not worthwhile. (I always assumed it was).
This was regarding the TDM V RTAS debate.
Old 11th January 2003
  #71
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
It is written.........
Old 11th January 2003
  #72
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Renie
I read from Speer on the DUC yesterday that this test misses out vital subtle information and is not worthwhile. (I always assumed it was).
This was regarding the TDM V RTAS debate.
maybe a bit checker than... because if the files are EXACT. the test is VERY worthwhile. means the math is EXACT.

of course, if it is completely null... i seriously doubt there is vital subtle information that will make or break the track.
Old 11th January 2003
  #73
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
Since then he's had plenty of time to give me a lot of condescending **** and rehash the same old arguments, but hasn't had the time to actually listen to the files that I took the trouble to send him.

If you went to this trouble wouldn't you feel a little iced too?

-R
I wrote that I will listen to your stuff.

Is there some kind of urgent deadline you need to give your conclusions by? (Who knows, perhaps you are planning to publish your critical thinking in the AES journal.)

I posted a few photos of today's session on another thread. These are lock-out sessions -- during a project, you can't just go in and de-patch things/tweak/mess around, not at my place.

Between projects, getting up at 6 am just to listen to your CD is not in the cards. Be upset, be obnoxious, be "iced" all you want, but I'm going to listen when it's convenient for me.
Old 11th January 2003
  #74
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk
maybe a bit checker than... because if the files are EXACT. the test is VERY worthwhile. means the math is EXACT.

of course, if it is completely null... i seriously doubt there is vital subtle information that will make or break the track.
There's no reason to think that the math would be exact. It will be rounded off or truncated to the resolution of the system. The question is whether the difference is perceivable. To repeat--nobody is making the claim that running through a PT fader will result in a bit-accurate copy, unless the fader is left at zero.

Yes, I did a null test and the result was silence. To qualify that, if there was any residual sound, I couldn't hear it, even cranking my monitors and outputs to the max. I had my ears point-blank on some JBL LSR28's, fed drectly from the converters. I then normalized the delta signal to listen to the noise, and could hear a difference between the residual noise of no fader move, of 2 fader moves, and of 16 fader moves. None exhibited any excessive ringing or spiking--mostly it sounded similar to white noise along with a very slight ghost image of the original track. It took a ridiculous amount of gain to make it audible at all. If I had done the same thing to an analog signal channel it would have sounded like the sinking of the Titanic.

In short, I can't imagine what other people are hearing that have lead to this "bad fader math" conclusion. I certainly can't see how moving a single fader could have a deleterious effect on a vocal.

So there is my opinion and my reasons for it. I suggest anyone who is curious about this, who has a DAW, try it for themselves. If there truly is some fader problem lurking in there I'd love to hear someone demonstrate it.

In any case, Jax was right--this is getting ridiculous. If anybody wants to use Protools without availing themselves of it's automation capabilities because they're afraid the faders are screwing up the sound, go right ahead. I'm done with this discussion unless someone has some evidence to contribute.

Sorry, Jon, it's not personal. It's just an issue that has puzzled me for a time and it seems like a forum like this is a good place to try to analyze it a bit deeper. I'm not trying to make you the whipping boy, but your assertion was the catalyst.

-R
Old 11th January 2003
  #75
Jax
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
If you went to this trouble wouldn't you feel a little iced too?

-R
Well yeah, Jon is being kind of a bitch about this, but he has stated some valid reasons for not being able to listen yet. I would probably feel the same way as you, but I have nothing to prove on this issue.
Old 12th January 2003
  #76
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Smith
[BIIRC, it has been proven that a +1 fader move in PT does not = a - 1 fader move due to the math used ( sorry for the lack of hard and fast info, I am late to a meeting) could the diffrences be due to the level not being the same? Just curious...[/B]
Hey guys, no one reacted to this post but it could potentially be important. Do you all think it is an issue? For example, Rick, if your files nulled out, they must have been at the same exact final level. How did you go about it exactly?

I hope to have the studio to myself on the morning of the 17th. Fellow GS poster Kent lives not too far away from the studio (he visited a couple months ago) and I will see if he can come then, too.

In addition to listening to Rick's CD, I would like to compare the sound of a lead vocal done here, a whole drum kit (13 faders), and an orchestra (15 faders), as follows: Pulled down 0.5dB and 10dB in PT with the SSL faders at unity, versus PT faders at unity and pulled down the same amounts on the SSL faders.

I will also check whether these same PT tracks null out after -10dB followed by +10dB, and will then verify the audible difference between the original from the gain-changed audio.

I agree with Speer (Renie's post above). While comparing the Digi dithered mixer to the original undithered one a couple years back (I correctly identified which was which on the DUC before Digi revealed the results), I noticed the two mix engines produced mixes that nulled out. Yet the sound was not the same. Reactions?

Jon
Old 12th January 2003
  #77
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
Ears win over math?

Old 12th January 2003
  #78
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Robinhood
so called supecool French engineers/Producers names
Mr. Robinhood,

Just to keep the record straight, Pete Schwier is actually English. He left on the 7th and I think he is at Windmill Lane Studios in Dublin right now, doing some stuff for U2 and one of their Mother Records artists. Then he starts the new PJ Harvey album. I don't know if he is supercool, but he is very capable, has a lot of experience producing and engineering, and is a really nice guy too.
Old 12th January 2003
  #79
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon
I would like to compare the sound of a lead vocal done here, a whole drum kit (13 faders), and an orchestra (15 faders), as follows: Pulled down 0.5dB and 10dB in PT with the SSL faders at unity, versus PT faders at unity and pulled down the same amounts on the SSL faders.
im not sure how this could be accomplished with any sort of comparable reasoning.... stricting due to the non linearity of analog circuts. but i would be interested in hearing the results none-the-less.
Old 12th January 2003
  #80
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
AJ...if you mean how can we position the faders on the SSL to precise positions...there is a button which sets all faders precisely to unity, and another one, Offline, which brings up a menu where you can move selected faders up/down (with or without auto) by amounts as small as 0.1dB. This is the feature used by mix assistants at the end of the mix to lay down the variants (vocal up 0.25dB, bass up 0.5dB, etc).

I would run a quick auto-calibration (Menu MISC->Diagnostic->Calibration) on the faders and motors before starting the test, just like at the start of a new album or project, to be sure everything is lined up.

This test deals with actual choices faced while mixing (do I pull down the fader in PT or on the console). While experience has shown repeatedly that it sounds better to set levels on the console, I'm game to run the test and compare blindly.
Old 12th January 2003
  #81
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
no... im aware of the -/+ [x]db increments... its how i used to pull down mixes off the 2buss as i used to pound it [weird way i have mixing... push them up, pull ALL faders back until i settle in a nice sweet spot]

im saying how you "hit" the analog console at -10db vs "Unity" will ultimately sound different. analog tends to work in sweet spots while digital kinda ignores those idiosyncrasies that analog possesses.
Old 12th January 2003
  #82
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Cool. Though if there is a critical sweet spot on the J series (I haven't noticed one), it's definitely not outside of it at minus 10dB.
Old 12th January 2003
  #83
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon

In addition to listening to Rick's CD, I would like to compare the sound of a lead vocal done here, a whole drum kit (13 faders), and an orchestra (15 faders), as follows: Pulled down 0.5dB and 10dB in PT with the SSL faders at unity, versus PT faders at unity and pulled down the same amounts on the SSL faders.

The only problem with this test is that if there is a difference between the two you won't know if it's the PT faders or the SSL faders which are responsible.

-R
Old 12th January 2003
  #84
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon
Hey guys, no one reacted to this post but it could potentially be important. Do you all think it is an issue? For example, Rick, if your files nulled out, they must have been at the same exact final level. How did you go about it exactly?


I agree with Speer (Renie's post above). While comparing the Digi dithered mixer to the original undithered one a couple years back (I correctly identified which was which on the DUC before Digi revealed the results), I noticed the two mix engines produced mixes that nulled out. Yet the sound was not the same. Reactions?

Jon
Are you asking how I created a null test? I bouced each file to disc and imported them into a PT session. I lined them up time-wise and flipped the phase. First I nulled the original against the file with 2 fader moves. The results were inaudible to me but I printed the null signal to its own track and then used Audiosuite to raise the volume until I could hear the delta signal. It was mostly noise, sounding similar to white noise, with a little ghost of the original signal. Then I nulled the original against the 16-fader-move file with the same results, only the delta signal exhibited more noise. How much more? I can't quantify, but it seemed like what one would expect.

BTW, in all the tests I've done I've never seen any evidence that minus 1, for instance, isn't the exact inverse of 1.

I don't think the null test necessarily proves anything. For me it was a tool to get at the delta signal and give it a listen. Chris Johnson hipped me to that at one point. It's interesting to hear what's going on down there. And you're still in the realm of listening, not math-wanking. However, because I couldn't hear a difference in the files to begin with, and furthermore couldn't, with the naked ear so to speak, hear the null signal, my personal conclusion is that I'll be looking elsewhere to explain Protools anomalies.

If I could have heard a difference between the files even though they nulled out (assuming that's possible) I would obviously go with my ears.

BTW, when you do your own fader move tests I hope you try doing one test where you do all the moves and compensations within Protools itself to remove the SSL faders or input channels as variables.

-R
Old 12th January 2003
  #85
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I was asking how you got your PT levels back to exactly the same levels as the original signal. It seems to me that -5 followed by +5 in PT results in exactly unity, but Steve's point is that it isn't so. What do you think.
Old 13th January 2003
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Steve Smith's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I have returned..

AS I understand it, ( and believe me, I am no authority...) the diffrences in fader math is not -+ on a fader, but when you try to drop the fader 5 db, then add 5 db at the master fader or in an aux.. fader + 5 should be exactly the same as fader - 5 .

Apparently, the master section , the auxes and the faders process levels all a bit diffrently. If not for the desprate desire to avoid the resulting flame war, I would try to get N.A. to come over abd get into the math of it all, but I think we all know where that would go...

I for one go on record and say that I like the mix buss on my SONY DMX better than PT , but I have no sonic issues with grabbing ann automation move in PT when it is more convienient. Which is to say i have never heard anything to make me want to set up a proper test.
Old 13th January 2003
  #87
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Smith
I have returned..

AS I understand it, ( and believe me, I am no authority...) the diffrences in fader math is not -+ on a fader, but when you try to drop the fader 5 db, then add 5 db at the master fader or in an aux.. fader + 5 should be exactly the same as fader - 5 .

I for one go on record and say that I like the mix buss on my SONY DMX better than PT , but I have no sonic issues with grabbing ann automation move in PT when it is more convienient. Which is to say i have never heard anything to make me want to set up a proper test.
Here's what I did. I had the file on an audio track at zero. I then sent it through a series of aux inputs, alternately raising and lowering those faders, with a net sum of zero. My nulling results suggest that in that scenario the faders are accurate. I didn't move the master fader. I don't recall if I moved the fader on the original audio track (mybad). In numerous other tests I've done of this type I always have gotten a null result and never seen anything to suggest that PT faders are not accurate. Again, it's very easy to check this.

What is the source of your information?

-R
Old 13th January 2003
  #88
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
BTW, I didn't use the master fader in these tests, because I've been led to believe that moving the master fader actually raises or lowers all the individual track and aux faders in the session. So if you pull down an audio fader and compensate with the master, all you're probably doing is resetting the audio track to zero, so no math is being performed and you would not expect to hear a problem.

-R
Old 14th January 2003
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Interesting thread...fun reading.

First off, I would like to acknowledge the quest for audio excellence demonstrated by BOTH Jon and Rick. Although they seem to be at odds, I firmly believe they are both on the same path, and their passion for the recording arts and sciences puts them both at the vanguard...or something like that.

That all having been said...

One thing that has occurred to The Curve: Listening to Rick's CD on a boombox for differences should be sufficient. If Jon doesn't have access to his own control room, who else possibly could?

We here at Curve Labs have done our own highly scientific tests, measuring the differences between tracks mixed in PT at unity gain, and the same tracks having moved the PT faders around a lot. There was a clearly percievable difference in the sound. We actually liked the sound of the tracks that had fader movements better than the ones that didn't.

We also did some comparisons between mixes done completely within PT, and mixes done through an SSL9000. We found a significant difference between those two sets of mixes: The mixes done through the SSL were noticably more expensive.

We also did some cross-platform tests to see if we could hear discernable differences in the dancability of the grooves, the hookiness of the hooks, the bitchin'-ness of the bitchin' guitar solos and the sexiness of the sexy female vocal takes. Unfortunately, those tests were inconclusive and frought with errors. We could never get the control group and the placebo group seperated on the dance floor (or the couch or the fouton, for that matter).

As a scientifically-minded engineering student, you can (hopefully) imagine how frustrating this was for me. I am new at this. I want to be a good engineer. But I couldn't get people to stop grinding on each other, or listening to the lyrics, or having sex off in the dark corners of the club long enough to tell me their impressions of the differences between the mix formats.

To make matters worse, the air was thick with that evil marijiona, and the cocktail waitresses kept serving me free drinks, and before you knew it I completely lost track of which mix was which, or what the hell I was even doing there in the first place. Then, when the asian girl with the blond highlights and impressive cleavage pulled me onto the dance floor...suffice to say I lost all scientific objectivity at that point. I'm so ashamed of myself.

What was the question???
Old 14th January 2003
  #90
Gear Addict
 
CrazyBeast's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
And with that, I think we can consider this thread dead!

I'm still curious though. [email protected]$#
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 30648
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 15929 views: 1528863
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 178605
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