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

[Mixerman]

Originally posted by DaveCarlock:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Steve Smith:
Couldnt you just use both?

<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

[DaveCarlock]

<<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

[Rail Jon Rogut]

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

[DaveCarlock]

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

[Mixerman]

Originally posted by DaveCarlock:
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

<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

[DaveCarlock]

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

[Mixerman]

Originally posted by DaveCarlock:
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.

<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.

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.DC

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

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

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

Mixerman

[Robocop]

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?

[andrej770]

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]

[digiengineer]

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]