IZ Technology/ RADAR

[james.ca]

You mised this one High End !!
Them RADAR guys are going to market there own ADA's due to hit the market March /08
No pricing up at there site but i'd asume your right arm and the kitchen sink
james.ca

[drumkideric]

Sounds good! I have always liked Radars converters.

[tubehead]

I love my RADAR 24!

[lowfreq33]

A radar rig is much cheaper than a PT rig, so I'd imagine they'll be reasonably priced. And awesome.

[Tony Shepperd]

Originally Posted by lowfreq33

A radar rig is much cheaper than a PT rig, so I'd imagine they'll be reasonably priced. And awesome.

Interesting... when you said much cheaper I thought the price really dropped on the RADAR's.
But after checking out the prices on a dealers website, I was a little surprised at the number.
I bought my PT HD for a lot less.

So what do you know that I don't?

RADAR V Classic
24 Channel System
for around $17,000

Mercenary Audio - iZ Technology RADAR Systems

[heyman]

Interesting that it supports up to 96 and not 192..?
Maybe NJ from IZ Corp can stop by and give us the rundown.

[indie]

I'm glad it'll be easy for everyone to finally get to hear what radar owners already know...the quality and "realness" of the radar converters/clock -- especially compared to the nasty digi 192's

[seaneldon]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

The Nyquist 96 k version uses the same A/D chips as the Alesis Masterlink and the HD24XR.
AKM5393.

Just don't insist that either of those boxes has anything to do with the sound of the RADAR V Nyquist. Because it's not true.

[kats]

Well, I think Jim actually brings up a good point. There's more to a converter box than just the chip.

[idylldon]

Originally Posted by seaneldon

Just don't insist that either of those boxes has anything to do with the sound of the RADAR V Nyquist. Because it's not true.

Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. So far, though, I haven't heard of anyone who has done a double-blind, side-by-side comparison. All I've heard is people ranting about how great one or the other is. Until there's some sort of *real* comparison, well, it's all just pure subjective conjecture.



Cheers,
--
Don

[james.ca]

Originally Posted by idylldon

Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. So far, though, I haven't heard of anyone who has done a double-blind, side-by-side comparison. All I've heard is people ranting about how great one or the other is. Until there's some sort of *real* comparison, well, it's all just pure subjective conjecture.



Cheers,
--
Don

Actually RADAR did an A/B test with the earlier models to a Studder reel to reel and no difference
Yes they do cost even used still retain a lot of there value I've been looking for deal on one myself but they still way up on cost new or used
Plus it seems most user owners tend to hang on to these units ! There must be a good reason they don't show up used that often !
James.ca

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

The Nyquist 96 k version uses the same A/D chips as the Alesis Masterlink and the HD24XR.

...and you could get a '68 Impala with the same Chevy "small blcok" 327 motor as the '68 Camaro RS [which could do a 12 second 1/4 mile OFF THE SHOWROOM FLOOR... while the Impala could barely do 16 seconds off the showroom floor... which is still fast, but exponentially slower than the Camaro.

The analogy here is that there is a lot more going on with both units than just the "engine" [in the case of the RADAR, that being the actual conversion chip].

Let's see... you'll have the clock playing a major role... the design of the analog electronics [frequency response, phase shift, headroom, etc.] playing a major role... blah, blah, blah.

A converter is far more than the chip it uses to accomplish the conversion... a converter is about how that chip is supported and employed... but really Jim... you of all people should have known and understood that so I have to wonder the purpose of your statement. Don't you do modifications to Masterlink's and HD24XR's in some sort of "sows ear to silk purse" effort to get them to sound like RADAR's?

[Audio Hombre]

edit: i guess fletcher answered my question

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by indie

I'm glad it'll be easy for everyone to finally get to hear what radar owners already know...the quality and "realness" of the radar converters/clock -- especially compared to the nasty digi 192's

192's are "alright" -not great but fine and usable. Its the 96's you got stay away from...

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by lowfreq33

A radar rig is much cheaper than a PT rig, so I'd imagine they'll be reasonably priced. And awesome.

Actually I've found quite the opposite... that a PT rig is far cheaper than RADAR... now a RADAR might be less expensive than a PT rig [configuration of that rig is an obvious consideration]... but it definitely ain't cheaper by any stretch of the imagination.

Sorry... student of the language.

Peace.

[vintagelove]

Radar is the best, hands down, but as far as it being cheaper, it may be a couple grand cheaper than an full hd setup, but you still need an analog mixer outboard cable. ect, that more than makes up for the diference in price,

[idylldon]

Originally Posted by james.ca

Actually RADAR did an A/B test with the earlier models to a Studder reel to reel and no difference

Comparing RADAR to a Studer when the thread is discussing the relative merits of one set of converters vs. another is pretty much useless. Pro Tools compared their converters to a tape machine as well. Guess what their results suggest?

As per your comment about RADAR systems not being for sale on the used market much, I guess you're not looking hard enough as there always seems to be one for sale in the classified section of this website. A quick search turned up these:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gears...lucid-wow.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gears...-radar-ii.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gears...gear-sale.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gears...-iis-sale.html

As per my original post, if anyone can point me to some worthwhile comparisons between all of these converters I'd love to see them. While I'm pretty sure a RADAR system will be my next recording setup when funds allow such an upgrade, I still think that it'd be interesting to hear some clips that were done with attention to making the playing field as level as possible with regard to source, mic, pres, etc.

BTW, I absolutely agree with Fletcher's comments about how there are many other variables involved other than just the A/D chips.

Cheers,
--
Don

[nobtwiddler]

From what I understand approx cost for 8 channels in/out is $9k.
I believe that is for the classic convertors ?
With the pricing more cost effective as you purchase more channels.

[heyman]

Did anyone see my above post. Why limit at 96K ?

where is 192 ??

[N.J.]

There is an independent shootout here. MPG event 2005 comparison with analoge and digital recording

ADA is designed with the same concepts as RADAR. Modular with longterm upgrade support (software and hardware).

Initially ADA will support 96 kHz, but with the S-Nyquist converters, users can future-proof for 192 kHz.

Let me know if you have anymore questions. I'll answer what I can.

[deuc647]

Are prices on the unit gonna be 9k for 8 channels i/o, or around that ball park?

[N.J.]

Prices are between 8-22k USD. No specifics at this time.

[Drumsound]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

The Nyquist 96 k version uses the same A/D chips as the Alesis Masterlink and the HD24XR.
AKM5393.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

And as we all know it's only one component of unit that makes the sound. The rest of the design and components have nothing to do with the sound of the conversion, it's just the chip.

[idylldon]

Originally Posted by N.J.

There is an independent shootout here. MPG event 2005 comparison with analoge and digital recording

I saw this when it came out quite a while ago. Anything more recent that you know of? The guy in the red hat and the man doing the intro speech mention that this would be the first in a series of tests. Do you know if any more recording/listening sessions like this have been done by them?

Also, I couldn't find the info on what converters they were using for Nuendo, but perhaps I just missed the link.

BTW, one of the things that impresses me most about the RADAR is the amazing level of service you folks provide. I have yet to read one negative comment about how your company deals with problems when they arise. Major kudos for this as it seems to be an all-but-extinct business model these days.

Cheers,
--
Don

[james.ca]

There a coverter shoot in the process .
Lets see if the manufacuters are up to some A - B - C side by testing with full unbiased published results.
Also include what's under the hood .
James.ca
.

[tubehead]

I use my RADAR 24 Classic - (I like the sound of the classic) with Nuendo for any DAW stuff. Nuendo/RME is clocked off the RADAR.

I'm not a PRO-Toys fan.


When sitting in a room with a PRO -Toys HD rig, my RADAR, and a mix going to 1/2" tape off an SSL console... You notice the difference instantly even with Pro-Toys using an Apogee.

The Radar sounded most like what was coming out in the control room.
The 1/2 tape did it's thing and sounded great.
PRO-Toys HD/Apogee.... narrow, congested, sad.

[indie]

Originally Posted by narcoman

192's are "alright" -not great but fine and usable. Its the 96's you got stay away from...

192's are ok, I guess. But the blind A/B I did with 192's and Radar24 converters was night and day. I drag my radar around with me now when I record drums, or anything for that matter, at other studios -- I eq less dramatically when Radar is used.

When I use 192's, I'm always cranking top end, subs, carving out low mid mud that the 192's add. Definitely not my favorite.
Anywhoo...
I completely agree with you that the 96's are absolute junk.

[N.J.]

I'm not really sure of anything more recent.
There was the Steve Albini "chicago test" PSW Recording Forums: R/E/P Saloon => The Chicago test results...

We don't really get involved in putting these things on. It's all just someone's subjective opinion. (although the general consensus is that people like the RADAR sound). I think the point is if YOU like the way it sounds, and if the product will work for YOUR workflow.
We offer demo units for people who are interested, so people who want to do their own shootout in their environment can. We've found this is the best way to sell a RADAR. Let someone use and hear one.

Same level of support and business model will be implemented with the ADA as with RADAR.

Originally Posted by idylldon

I saw this when it came out quite a while ago. Anything more recent that you know of? The guy in the red hat and the man doing the intro speech mention that this would be the first in a series of tests. Do you know if any more recording/listening sessions like this have been done by them?

Also, I couldn't find the info on what converters they were using for Nuendo, but perhaps I just missed the link.

BTW, one of the things that impresses me most about the RADAR is the amazing level of service you folks provide. I have yet to read one negative comment about how your company deals with problems when they arise. Major kudos for this as it seems to be an all-but-extinct business model these days.

Cheers,
--
Don

[Tony Shepperd]

Originally Posted by tubehead

I use my RADAR 24 Classic - (I like the sound of the classic) with Nuendo for any DAW stuff. Nuendo/RME is clocked off the RADAR.

I'm not a PRO-Toys fan.


When sitting in a room with a PRO -Toys HD rig, my RADAR, and a mix going to 1/2" tape off an SSL console... You notice the difference instantly even with Pro-Toys using an Apogee.

The Radar sounded most like what was coming out in the control room.
The 1/2 tape did it's thing and sounded great.
PRO-Toys HD/Apogee.... narrow, congested, sad.

All that you write might be true about "Pro Toys"....
but there's something about being able to tune a vocal here and there or fix the timing on the drums when you need too.

Those frequently necessary things are much easier to do in Pro Tools.

[raal]

anyone know if the ADA's HD interface copies the delay times on digi 192s? thanks.