View Single Post
Old 05-19-2002, 10:16 PM
DaveCarlock DaveCarlock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Woodland Hills, CA USA
Posts: 341
Default 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...

Reply With Quote