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

[bombfactory]

Below, my post from March 24th in Mixerman's forum.

Yes, MARCH. Nobody's managed to find a piece of test gear yet I notice.

--------------

On 24 Mar 2002 13:22 chrisj wrote:

> Do you have ANY IDEA how badly bass authority
> and extension have to be compromised in order
> to damage 50hz response that badly?

At this point, is it really too much to ask that somebody backs up these claims with an actual measurement?

My 192 measures flat (frequency and phase).

Maybe Mixerman's unit is broken, maybe there are other factors, but wild claims like "down 6dB at 60Hz" really ought to show up on some piece of measurement gear.

Repeat: I do not want talk of "perceived" bass (auditory or visual), nor "psychoacoustic" nonsense lectures from someone who lives in his mom's attic. I want an actual friggin' measurement.

Heck, I'll settle for correlated noise files. But post something, please.

If it comes back flat, we've got other things to look for.

If it comes back rolled off, goes back to Digi for servicing, and comes back still rolled off, then I'll happily celebrate the demise of Digi, give you their home and cell phone numbers so you can mock them personally, AND start referring to the product as Alsihad in all my advertising, packaging, and marketing materials.

Deal?

> Look, I'm going to be really honest with you.
> I'm a 33 year old indie attic dweller running
> off 20-bit ADAT

Surprise, surprise.

> The fact that I can make converters out of Lexi
> MPX-100 and third-party audiophile film caps
> for under $200, that outperform a $30,000
> (alsihad) system in bass authority, is SHAMEFUL
> and OBSCENE.

No, the fact that you seem to think that anyone 1) believes you or 2) actually gives a **** is SHAMEFUL and OBSCENE.

> And I'm sorry- if the top of the line Digi
> setup is down even 3 db at 40 hz

It isn't.

> my simple modded MPX-100 butchers it.

It doesn't.

> A rolloff like that is WRONG, it is technically broken.

Agreed. But it ain't.

> Mixerman has said that there's a visible
> difference in the resulting woofer movement due
> to these converters.

Ah, there's a nice technical measurement: "See the bass."

> Don't you see how wrong that is?

Yes, looking at woofers is the wrong way to troubleshoot an audio system. Visual woofer inspection is not a great source of quantifiable technical information. (I've never once seen pictures of woofers in Apogee ads.)

> I mean, that's really embarrassing...

Yes, $100K worth of recorders in the control room but no noise generator or Radio Shack SPL meter *is* getting a little embarassing at this point.

> Do you WANT all the major label guys to be
> saddled with anemic, tinny, brittle sonics?

It started with the SSL 4000... why stop now?

--Erik

_________________
Erik Gavriluk
www.bombfactory.com - Digital Done Right

[Jules]

Awesome start to the much awaited page 6 by Erik!

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

[stelios88]

Praise be to Erik!!!!

If you go back (around 160 posts) you will see how I pleaded with these "testers" to get some real test equipment and test everything!

You Erik, have stated all of this much more precisely. Here, here, cheers to Erik.

BTW, as stated before, my 192's have no problem making the woofers move! The tweeters are moving too! I can see them, really I can! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[loudist]

Hey Boneheads....

Tone tests don't mean that much to what it actually sounds like...

Originally posted by Lynn Fuston:

In truth, the specs told us very little. There was one unit that tested as flat as any and yet sounded like a transistor radio. Another unit tested flat and sounded like it included Aphex's "Big Bottom" circuit, the low end was so hyped.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">(sorry Lynn, I thought your post carried more credability here than me seeing as I am a 'messenger killed'.)

[Fraxby]

This is prodigious, to say the least. Six pages about a non-event! Keep up the good work.

[bombfactory]

Originally posted by loudist:

> Hey Boneheads....
> Tone tests don't mean that much to what
> it actually sounds like...

I agree. That's why I posted the following on MARCH 25th. Nobody followed up on this one, either.

--------

Posted: 25 Mar 2002 01:15

As part of doing our digital models at 96kHz and 192kHz, we ran noise through the interfaces at all sample rates. They measure flat.

Also as part of testing, we recorded noise to our Studer A800 and 3M machines. We did this both "straight to tape" as well as through the bus amps and group output transformers on our Trident A Range.

Transformer and recorder effects were immediately evident in frequency and phase plots, as you'd expect.

We dumped the tape into Pro Tools at 48, 96 and 192kHz for further analysis. We also recorded the noise straight into Pro Tools as well. Standard test procedures.

Analyzing the wave files, as well as analyzing the data in the analog domain post Pro Tools D/A, we saw no significant drop off as part of the transfer (in or out).

Also for obvious reasons: both 2" machines lost way, way more low end from the analog noise source than the digital recording.

But none of this affects Mixerman's claims. "Sound flat" and "measure flat" are totally different, of course.

My point with Mixerman is that I want to start getting down to business here. I can attest that my Digi 96 and 192 interfaces are not down 6dB at 60Hz. However, due to lack of data, I cannot speak for his rig or setup.

--Erik

[stelios88]

Bonehead??? Hummm........let's see if you can understand this concept.

If you KAL-I-BRRR-ATE the system/s, then you can do the Ti-EST with the Ti-EST equipment.

Tones don't tell you anything about sound?

Remember all the analog tapes that had calibration tones? MRL's? I've even printed tones on DATS Why? _______________fill in the blank.

Steve

[loudist]

Originally posted by stelios88:
Bonehead??? Hummm........let's see if you can understand this concept.

If you KAL-I-BRRR-ATE the system/s, then you can do the Ti-EST with the Ti-EST equipment.

Tones don't tell you anything about sound?

Remember all the analog tapes that had calibration tones? MRL's? I've even printed tones on DATS Why? _______________fill in the blank.

Steve

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yea Bonehead.

Don't be such an a s s.
Try to get your cognition skills together.

That is correct... flat tested equipment doesn't mean it will sound anywhere near flat or good for that matter.

let the idiotcy continue...

[bombfactory]

Right... but when someone says "6dB down at 60Hz" that implies a problem with "flatness" (good old-fashioned scientific flatness), as opposed to audiophile-speak.

Any audio discussion quickly becomes bogged down in audiophile-speak. It's the "get out of jail free" card of audio debate. Which is why I made the following post on MARCH 25:

--------
On 25 Mar 2002 01:53 jules wrote:

> Would you be so kind as to detail the
> differences between the sound of each
> and your own preferred method for transfer?

The tests on the recorders and interfaces were performed to establish a baseline for further measurements.

Remember: we model other gear. And you can't do things like model the subtleties of the output transformer in an 1176 until you've isolated all the other wackiness from the equation.

So we're awfully strict about how we collect data, and we check and re-check the acquistion devices every way we can before we start collecting data on the gear we model. Then all of this is clearly documented and archived.

So, to be blunt, if there were major problems with the Digi interfaces (such as massive HF or LF rolloff), we would have noticed this long, long ago.

I'd offer the following reminder:

If you're transferring stuff from any medium to any medium, analog or digital, you need to listen to the dub carefully, and compare it to the master critically.

Much to his credit, Mixerman has done this, and strives to continue to do this. That's why I'm spending time here working toward a technical solution to what appears to be a technical problem.

I'm all for sharing "do's and don'ts" but you really shouldn't overgeneralize. It all depends on your rig and the program material. You need to trust your ears and find the "sweet spot" when interfacing all your gear.

--Erik

[Lynn Fuston]

Originally posted by stelios88:
Tones don't tell you anything about sound?

Remember all the analog tapes that had calibration tones? MRL's? I've even printed tones on DATS Why?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Tones will tell you a lot about levels. That's why we use them on tapes.

They typically won't tell you what a piece of gear will sound like. Two pieces of gear can output a 1kHz tone at identical levels and sound completely different.

Lynn Fuston
3D Audio