Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-19-2002, 04:44 PM
DaveCarlock DaveCarlock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Woodland Hills, CA USA
Posts: 341
Default 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...

Episode IV--A New Hope
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-19-2002, 05:19 PM
DaveCarlock DaveCarlock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Woodland Hills, CA USA
Posts: 341
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-19-2002, 05:40 PM
Jules Jules is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,565
Default 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]
__________________
Jules
London, UK
Come hang with us here!
www.gearslutz.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-19-2002, 07:35 PM
Steve Smith Steve Smith is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 29
Default Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...

Couldnt you just use both?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-19-2002, 07:47 PM
DaveCarlock DaveCarlock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Woodland Hills, CA USA
Posts: 341
Default Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2002, 07:52 PM
DaveCarlock DaveCarlock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Woodland Hills, CA USA
Posts: 341
Default 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
...>>
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-19-2002, 07:54 PM
loudist loudist is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 154
Default 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.
__________________
We now have 2 generations that believe CD's are the best in audio reproduction. - Rupert Neve
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-19-2002, 07:55 PM
DaveCarlock DaveCarlock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Woodland Hills, CA USA
Posts: 341
Default 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. >>
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-19-2002, 08:11 PM
DaveCarlock DaveCarlock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Woodland Hills, CA USA
Posts: 341
Default Re: 2" Transfer into 192--the original timeless classic. Accept no imitations...

From MattiMattMatt:

i agree with rtc
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-19-2002, 08:13 PM
DaveCarlock DaveCarlock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Woodland Hills, CA USA
Posts: 341
Default 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Waves "Maserati Signature" and "CLA Classic Compressors" lowlights Buy & Sell 2 08-12-2013 09:36 AM
"Unable to locate digidesign hardware" Mbox (original) ProTools LE 7.4.2 Mac OS X sharpd 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 23 04-27-2012 12:11 AM
LE 8 install with Original Mbox: "Additional Files": Factory Bundle Installers amusos 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 0 08-17-2011 07:53 PM
New 27" imac / "original" mbox - need some clear advice.please help !! santococo 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 4 05-21-2010 10:30 AM
Switching a HD from "transfer only" to "record mode" BretFarewell 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 6 02-16-2010 12:49 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com