2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Episode IV--A New Hope

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

OK, back to the topic:

MM and I are disagreeing on the use of CD-Rs v.s. an MX-2424 as mixdown formats. I don't know why though since MM hasn't responded to my questions.

I thought I had displayed that an MX-2424 would be free to MM, technically superior in the sense that we would not use to different machines to compare, eliminating another variable to the test.

MM's only response so far has been about the "real worldness" of mixing to a CDR.

When asked about the added ability to A/B/C the 2", HD, & RADAR he only said he wasn't there to test RADAR, only to use it as control.

But part of the key to a successful listening test is not BREAKING the concentration of the listener. If the test is only to compare the HD & 2", then why bring the RADAR at all if you aren't going to listen to it? If you ARE planning to reference it, then it should be setup in the easiest way to instantaneously switch sources so as to not break the concentration of the listener. That mandates the setup of an A/B/C test--even if "C", the RADAR for instance, is only listened to once or twice and A/B is the main focus.

MM, are you being superstitious about this for some reason? Why are you bothered by this? It's clearly the best option for several reasons and I've been backed up by several people. If someone has a better idea, I'm open but going to CDRs and using multiple playback devices and a switcher box is not a simpler or better solution. I know you are more than capable of understanding this, why the resistence--really!!

I understand you are looking for a "real world" method, but that does not exist in giving us the option of an A/B comparison. In the real world, someone typically has one CD-R and they record and listen back on one unit.

So actually, recording the mixes to an MX-2424 and listening back through YOUR converters of choice is more a real world method because it is ONE PLAYBACK UNIT.

However, as I understand it, in the film world, MX-2424s and MMR-8s are used to print stems for delivery every day. Someone jump in if I'm wrong, film guys.

The only thing I see as varying from your methodology or point of view is this EXACT unit. Perhaps you aren't familar with it, at least in record production.

So to me and others, the MX-2424 is the best option WITH your dB Gold converters. And in the film world, this type of method IS real world.

However, as you suggest, listening back on multiple playback devices is not real world. Users listen back on the device they record to. Not a duplicate sitting nearby.

A/B'ing is not real world. If it were, we'd have no need to restage your test--many others would have done it already.. What we want to do is have the fairest test possible, which in ITSELF is not real world. Don't even GET me going on the cynical tip...

So let's do the MX-2424. I am also looking at having dB Gold converters furnished for the in & out to save you any trouble.

Please reply this time--#3.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Jeeze are you two bickering amongst yourselves?

[img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]

Sheesh!

[img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

GET IT TOGETHER GUYS!

[img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Couldnt you just use both?

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good compromise Steve, but Mixerman skipped it and said "if you want to print to a multitrack, we'll print to the RADAR." To which I countered that if he was so adament to avoid printing to HD, we couldn't print to a RADAR either--fair is fair.

Printing simultaneously would mean a mult, and that isn't real world as MM has said before. I assume we would have to do reprints. That's fine for me if MM insists on printing to a CDR. But it seems a waste of time to do double the prints when a single print to an MX-2424 should fulfill all of MM's needs to go to mastering. We can use the dB gold converter that I will provide out of the MX-2424 at the mastering facility as well if he'd like, if it's the same day.

Also, if MM changes from DAT to CDR this time, why not change to something that offers more advantages?

If MM wants to press CDs of the results and he plans to go to a mastering facility, can't the mastering house do the 24 to 16 bit conversion better than a standalone CDR?

Unanswered questions... Mixerman?

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

From Loudist:

<<Dave Carlock, who is keeping his eye on the ball, has asked for some constructive input a few times and sometimes it goes unanswered...

...There was an question about using dats or CD's for listening analysis, or using a third party multitrack standalone for digital playback for the A/B tests.

I think CD's are out because of the error correction circuitry, unless there is a direct digital out into a converter--still iffy though
...>>

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Dave, I agree with Jules,
Keep out of the gangwar.
You haven't been a 'banger' during all of this, don't start now.
It will erode your credibility.

Let loudist be the uncredible one, after all he already is with some.

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

From RTCSTUDIO:

<<MM,

Dave's test is exactly what you're saying except he wants to use a Tascam multitrack to print mixes to instead of individual CD's

I see no reason not to give him this. If it shows up in a 24 bit medium, I'd like to know that as well, since a 24 bit medium is what I take to mastering.

I see nothing "tweaky" about this, and it WILL be easier to A/B/C the contestants if all the mixes are on the same machine and lined up.

If you want to print to CD as well as the Tascam, then go for it. I'm sure Dave is willing to take care of the little bit of extra effort to print to the Tascam.

Even if this test is a bit more "tweaky" than your original, I think it's in all of our best interest to find even the small differences, IF that's all it turns out to be. I'd be interested in how I should compensate, even for small sonic differences between 2" and ProTools. >>

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

From MattiMattMatt:

i agree with rtc

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

There are a couple more, but that's the general review. So now I guess we wait for MM to comment, and we'll see if he agrees disagrees or compromises.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good compromise Steve, but Mixerman skipped it and said "if you want to print to a multitrack, we'll print to the RADAR." To which I countered that if he was so adament to avoid printing to HD, we couldn't print to a RADAR either--fair is fair.

Printing simultaneously would mean a mult, and that isn't real world as MM has said before. I assume we would have to do reprints. That's fine for me if MM insists on printing to a CDR. But it seems a waste of time to do double the prints when a single print to an MX-2424 should fulfill all of MM's needs to go to mastering. We can use the dB gold converter that I will provide out of the MX-2424 at the mastering facility as well if he'd like, if it's the same day.

Also, if MM changes from DAT to CDR this time, why not change to something that offers more advantages?

If MM wants to press CDs of the results and he plans to go to a mastering facility, can't the mastering house do the 24 to 16 bit conversion better than a standalone CDR?

Unanswered questions... Mixerman? DC<hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You can print to the Radar because it's the control. The Radar is irrelevant. This is not HD v. Radar. The Radar is there to prove that it's not a cabling issue, or some other technical error that caused the problem. If you are looking for a 24 bit storage medium, there is no problem with the Radar being the medium. It's not a part of the test other than to prove that this isn't just how all digital platforms reproduce the bottom end.

I'm generally against A/B/C tests. They muck things up. Keep it simple. We A/B the HD playback versus the 2" transfer. If there's somehow no loss of low end this time, the experiment is pretty much done. If there IS a loss of low end, we do the same process with the Radar with the same cabling to see if there is a loss of low end there. Then we A/B the Radar against the 2". Then if you would like to hear the Radar v. the HD, be my guest, a third A/B.

People want to hear these files. We are only putting it on the Radar as storage. It is not being tested, it is a control. Why do you want to bring in, hook up and add in yet another variable?

Mixerman

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<<People want to hear these files. We are only putting it on the Radar as storage. It is not being tested, it is a control. Why do you want to bring in, hook up and add in yet another variable?>>

RADAR would be used as the mixdown format, not just for storage, but more on that later...

Using an MX-2424 to record the mixes for listen back is not adding another variable. It only adds a new name to the cast of characters. You can't logically state that replacing CDRs or DATs with an MX-2424 ADDS another variable. They all play the same role in this movie: mixdown format.

You have to record the mixes somewhere pre-listen back don't you? Do we agree here? You don't intend to switch the inputs to the console live do you? Then it's imperative to record them.

Where? DAT? No. CDR? Not preferred by many in and of itself for many of the same reasons as DAT.

My objection to CDR is the need for two playback machines. Having more than one playback machine ADDS THE VARIABLE of differences between the two CD players. You must realize this. What allows you to accept this when it can be bettered at no effort to you?

By having a multitrack as the mixdown format--since recording the mixes is unavoidable, as I explored before--ELIMINATES A VARIABLE. It eliminates the differences between CD players! I know you understand this thought process or you wouldn't insist on using the same cabling between the 2" and the HD and insist on using the same console channels. It will give all mixes the same treatment as they pass out the same 2 outputs.

With the meticulous attention you put toward using the same signal path, how can you deny bettering the test by using the same playback machine (an MX-2424), same set of outputs, no switch box pre converters and same cabling returns to console inputs for listen back? Inspired by your approach on the front half, I found a way to improve your test--not easy! I hope you can see that.

And finally--if you are using RADAR in the test as control or otherwise, you cannot record mixes to RADAR and play them back without using dB Gold converters, as you would with DAT, CDR, or MX-2424. Otherwise, you will record HD's sonic imprint through RADAR's sonic imprint.

So even trying to accomodate your idea, it would slow down the test. Why? Because if you need to reference the RADAR, you would need to disengage the dB converters to accurately compare the RADAR's sonic imprint (your control) to the 2". Then you would need to reconnect the dB converters to the RADAR outputs to listen again to HD v.s. 2".

Surely you should see the MX-2424 as being far easier in many respects. Are there any other reasons you are resisting this?

I really don't understand where you're coming from especially because I've only followed your test concept through to a more Mixerman-like end step. Airtight baby!!!

Please reply...

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

DC

If you're looking for a logical explanation.. you're not going to get one. We had the same argument about recording the test files into any DAW -- and MM was adament that merely recording into Pro Tools via any converters screws up the sound. I'm not going to go search for the exact quote - but he effectively said that Pro Tools inherently can't reliably record a digital audio steam - using dBTech converters or anything else. He cited a mastering engineer in LA - who I contacted and said he couldn't remember the conversation between himself and MM... and further went on to state "PT can be bit accurate if you don't touch anything, as you know. Actually, I've heard some amazing mixes from the dB converter to PT; sounds just like the 2 buss if you ask me, but this is purely as a storage medium....."

I have no problems in believing that MM heard a problem when he did the original tests... I just have a hard time following his logic which has no basis in science. While I heartily agree no test can rely soley on measurements - and tones... Superstition has no place in a test either.

Regards.

Rail

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Rail,

I remember the posts you're referring to. However, the MX-2424 is not PT nor is it made by Digidesign. I know you know this, but I'm stating it for the record of the thread.

I feel what you're saying, but I want to give MM a chance to see my point or at least discover his true beliefs that are coloring his opinion on the MX-2424.

"keeping it simple" doesn't work cuz the listening part of his test is more complicated.

"keeping it real world" doesn't work as the listening part of his test isn't real world. I could see his point on how the mult ideas were not real world, but not on this subject.

"print to the RADAR" isn't simpler or faster. As well, the RADAR should be held free from being any part of the test EXCEPT the control. Each piece of gear in the test should have a distinct role. Not a dual role as he proposes if we print to RADAR--control AND mixdown format.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I won't print to a box that I've never used before. Won't do it. So forget it. I defenitely won't print to PT. It's either CD, DAT, or Radar. You know, they DO make digital switchers. It's really not hard to switch between playback machines through the same convertors.

We can print to a second Radar if it makes you more comfortable. I don't understand. As far as y'all are concerned, I'm superstisious, right? So if it's just MY superstision, then why the objections?

We'll use db convertors in and out of a second Radar. Then the Radar is just storage.

Mixerman

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

I won't print to a box that I've never used before. Won't do it. So forget it.

Thanks for being honest.

But short of furnishing you with a MX-2424 to evaluate, it looks like I'm compromising my own requests to accomodate what you say are your superstitions.

I've maintained from the beginning, weeks ago, that if we cannot print to HD, we cannot print to RADAR. I have allowed room for your requests, superstitious or factual.

If consideration to my requests about the retest is important to you, perhaps we can get you an MX-2424 to check out so you aren't new to it. Let me know whenever you want it.

If consideration to my requests of weeks ago is unimportant to you, then a 2nd RADAR w/dB gold in & out will be the plan. Let me know.

Either way we have agreed to print to a multitrack. Thank you.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I realize this, but I can't think of any other alternative that I'm comfortable with as you won't print to CD.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ah, yes. Very well worded.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You're welcome.

Mixerman

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Dave Carlock, MM found a problem doing a 2"
transfer into HD. He heard an obvious dropout in the low end with his client in the room.
Not a very good thing. He then went into the Radar with the same cable to make sure everything was cool with his multitrack. It played back fine. He probably then breathed a sigh of relief. The Radar was simply used a trouble shooting device.

Now it would seem to me that it make's the most sense to recreate this problem using the same gear when it occurred the first time.

Why add any devices that were not in the setup the first time it happened?

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

I am so tired of this damn thread [img]images/icons/mad.gif[/img] . Can't you pathological debaters do all this offline then report your results when you finally find something REALLY wrong with HD or really more superior with HD. I mean really! This "my dad's job is better than your daddy's job" banter and back-and-forth is really getting old. You both have emails; use them for Cryin Out loud! (Oh yeah forgot, MM wants ta be invisible man - LOL) As much time as you spend splitting words and deliberately taking what the other says out of context and making a big deal out of something your clients, at the end of the day, could honest care less about, I can't see how you get any work done. Ya sound like politicians postering and fudging the details in your favor to gain position or notoriety. I'm not voting either one of you cats.

Just my .02. Let the flames fly, I can handle mine! [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Here is another compromise, would anybody disagree to using a Tascam DA-45HR with dB converters as the 2 mix deck? It's DAT, it's 24-bit, and it has been accepted as a mastering format at Bernie Grundman's.

Just a suggestion... [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, this is where we've landed:

mixdown to 2nd RADAR.

Thanks anyway.

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by andrej770:
[QB]I am so tired of this damn thread...This "my dad's job is better than your daddy's job" banter and back-and-forth is really getting old...

Again, if you are bothered, just don't drop by. We are making progress although it's hard to see with all the off topic stuff that goes on here. The input from readers has helped me think this through and come up with other ideas--so thank you to them. I don't have admin controls to edit and delete as I've said before, so my only ability to clean things up is to start a new thread when things get too ridiculous. That's just the way it is. If you think you're tired of reading, you can only imagine how much I'm ready to stop writing and do the test.

And if YOU'RE tired of reading, do you really think others want to read about how tired you are of reading? Just a thought.

The "are we there yet" comments don't get us there any faster unfortunately.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I've written extensively on this. Please look back.

Take care,

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Looks like Digiengineer might be able to get a studio on June 15th--thanks Digiengineer!

In the meantime, let's keep our ears open for something sooner.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

This exercise is like trying to get the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Green Partys, Communists, Nudists, Passivists, Pessimists, Optimists, and the French to agree on something!!!

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">HA! You're catching on!!

In case anyone has a room to offer, I'm only available on weekends for the next 5 weeks unless something changes. I'm confident something will come along... thanks for your support.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

What if there's a minor tremor in the Hollywood basin?

Norcal just suffered through a grueling 15 sec 5.2-

...might jog the head calibration between passes. Can we all agree the anything greater than a 2.5...

You'll redo the test?

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Dave,

You are a patient, patient man.

I suppose this still works though, since the 2nd mixdown Radar plays the same role as the Tascam. All the contestants are being treated equally.

Thanks for hanging in there.

What's the scoop on sonic graphs? Is this going to be a listening test only? With all that you've tried to do, I would understand if you didn't want to mess with any analyzing gear, I suppose we could do that ourselves with the files that become available.

Good luck with the test!

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would like to start by graphing tones recorded on the 2" tape. Perhaps MM has some extra on the reel that we could record on.

I'd like to graph a test signal through the 2"--no tape--just to compare to Digi's graph, the recorded test signal off the tape, test signal through HD--no tape--, test signal through HD from tape. Hopefully all that can be done in a few minutes.

What would be the single best test signal to record so we have the most telling graph on the Audio Precision?

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Le noises of pink would be a good choice.
All frequencies, all the time, at the same energy.

The trouble is, that unless you have test equipment there at the session, you will not have the Tape machine output analysed and graphed, and that would be the control graph as the tape machine is the 'mother' of the signal test in this case.

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Thanks Loudist. I plan to have the test gear there. Pink noise it is. To all: speak now or forever hold your peace!

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Okay

I can give you an 8078 and 800 and/or 827 on Saturday.

Let's get it on (and put an end to this thread) [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Rail

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Go with Rail

He knows his ****

And has loooooooooooooooooong been repected round here.

[img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

One question, if you record pink noise on to the 24 track tape machine, and then transfer the pink noise to PTHD, and Radar, how will you measure the spectrum?
I mean to say, will the pink noise tracks that are being used for the test be run through the same console faders at the same static 'mix' levels as the program material to the 2 mix bus so you would have 3 discrete pink noise 'mixs' from all three repro devices, tape, PTHD, and Radar?

It seems to me that this would be the proper way to do this.

I guess that was two questions.

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Loudist,

I was planning to focus on HD since that's what's really in question.

But...

With your idea in mind, it would be more complete to measure a single channel of:

TAPE pink measured from 2"
TAPE pink measured from 2" rec to HD
TAPE pink measured from 2" rec to RADAR
TAPE pink measured from 2" to console, rec to HD
TAPE pink measured from 2" to console, rec to RADAR

NO TAPE pink measured through 2"
NO TAPE pink measured through 2" recorded to HD
NO TAPE pink measured through 2" recorded to RADAR
NO TAPE pink measured from 2" to console, rec to HD
NO TAPE pink measured from 2" to console, rec to RADAR

that will give us a really accurate picture of what's going on with the gear I suspect. I assume these snapshots can be done in a few minutes without a lot of messing about since it's pink noise rather than music.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

Thanks to Rail! I'm on with my HD rig for Saturday morning. Mixerman?

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

DC, do you need you the following?

1) Second RADAR?

2) An Audio Precision?

3) Transport of your HD rig?

Drop me an e-mail if you need anything on (or not on) this list. Good looking out Rail!

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

I got word today that the RADAR does not allow you to send all tracks out the same output pair so that defeats everything I was accomplishing with an MX-2424. Printing to a 2nd RADAR makes no sense at all now.

Are there any other multitracks that can do 96K that can have the tracks all route out the same output pair?

Thanks for the input.

DC

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What do you mean "all tracks?" You can send any pair out the AES out of a RADAR 24 (don't know about RADAR IIs). I do it all the time. If you are wanting to sum tracks through the AES outs (why would you want to?), then you're out of luck.

Lynn Fuston
3D Audio

Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...
 

What do you mean "all tracks?" You can send any pair out the AES out of a RADAR 24 (don't know about RADAR IIs). I do it all the time. If you are wanting to sum tracks through the AES outs (why would you want to?), then you're out of luck.

Lynn Fuston
3D Audio

That's the idea and I am out of luck with the RADAR. The plan was to put the tracks with various mixes (6-8 tracks)in input and take the mix we wanted to listen back to out of input. All tracks would be set out a pair of outputs and allow all the mixes to come out the same device, same outputs, same cables, same converters. Instead of DATs or CDs which would require a playback machine for each mix and a switch box pre converter.

Any one else have a device that will do this? I was told the MX-2424 will do it.

DC