The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is it about RADAR?
Old 20th September 2013
  #331
I have had similar experiences as Sky...He's a long time Radar user...I don't think he needs to read posts by those people to "get it"....

Me? I Could care less what Ethan and other "experts" have to say about that...My experience with the gear matters more than hearsay scientists and their theories.

Do they record to RADAR?

Furthermore, your friend's comments seem irrelevant and really "his own"...since there are plenty of people here who use radar over a DAW and find it a better choice.
Old 20th September 2013
  #332
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
I have had similar experiences as Sky...He's a long time Radar user...I don't think he needs to read posts by those people to "get it"....

Me? I Could care less what Ethan and other "experts" have to say about that...My experience with the gear matters more than hearsay scientists and their theories.

Do they record to RADAR?

Furthermore, your friend's comments seem irrelevant and really "his own"...since there are plenty of people here who use radar over a DAW and find it a better choice.
I do "get it".

If gear is really bad it often get's slated on forums. If it is very good it get's praised. The problem is that people with neutral views tend not to comment so it can get "bigged up" more than it deserves.

I don't have a problem with Radar, it's a good product, BUT, it is awfully expensive, particularly for what it is capable of.

If someone reading this thread thought "Wow, it's going to answer all my dreams", they could be spending a huge amount of money, only to realise, that it doesn't sound noticeably any different than their Reaper, Logic, Nuendo, Pro Tools, system whilst costing as much or considerably more and offering significantly less functionality.

The DAW point I made earlier in this thread, got poo-pooed, but I made that point to say that fundamentally it is still a PC running software, however reliable people were finding it. If you took the mixing and plugin's out of Nuendo or any other system, would that make them not a DAW?

If you are considering buying a Radar, I would err caution, and recommend that you take an extensive demonstration, even hire one for a few days, to get a feel for what it can and can not do. I would also strongly suggest that they (whoever they are), look at the various DAW systems on the market and see if something like that doesn't better suite their purposes.

Personally the level of functionality together with track count and cost rule it out for me, but of course, YMMV
Old 20th September 2013
  #333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I do "get it".

If gear is really bad it often get's slated on forums. If it is very good it get's praised. The problem is that people with neutral views tend not to comment so it can get "bigged up" more than it deserves.
But this is a specific thread about Radar. We're talking about the product and what it does. It's users are chiming in to discuss individual experiences. Everything after would be synchronous to such events. To me, it sounds like the "Neutral Party" A) Has little to no experience with the product, B) Is just presenting an outside opinion, C) Has something in mind for a better workflow. All well and good. But it appears that we are going beyond this in many cases. People like the RADAR's workflow and the sound of it's converters when you hook it up to a console. Me, personally, yea I need a DAW like Pro Tools hanging around, with a RADAR. I use PT a lot and love it. For me, the RADAR workflow is similar to working with tape, so instead of a tape recorder I would get a RADAR. I like having the option to use a DAW or the RADAR, or both. I have enjoyed it very much in the past!

Quote:
I don't have a problem with Radar, it's a good product, BUT, it is awfully expensive, particularly for what it is capable of.
That's certainly arguable, and I get where your coming from. However, it just doesn't sound like you are well informed about this hardware. IZ Corp is a smaller company. They build a unique and custom product there. Highly specialized and interesting. The Converters sound awesome. Undeniable. The RADAR has a sound because of it's simple layout and high quality converters. Also, because you have to use it with an Analog Mixer. Well, you can use it with a Digital One, but I don't "get" that idea. I would much rather use it with an Analog Console. But hey? You love RADAR? But want a DAW? Well, gee...they make the stand alone converters, why not just get those? Done.

Quote:
If someone reading this thread thought "Wow, it's going to answer all my dreams", they could be spending a huge amount of money, only to realise, that it doesn't sound noticeably any different than their Reaper, Logic, Nuendo, Pro Tools, system whilst costing as much or considerably more and offering significantly less functionality.
That's really on them. As much as I like helping the next man along, I think engineers need to make decisions for themselves. And really make up their mind about how things should go. This is one of the most important parts about our craft. It's hard enough to make a decision for yourself, let alone make it for someone else. And really, all these posts are conjecture. If you take it as fact, you are bound to get burned by it. Even the ones that "caution" you.

I think if you can't see the forest through the tree's and do your own homework that is no fault of anyone's post or opinion. Regarding your "sound noticeably different" comment, yes these converters sound noticeably different than the others, and if you can't hear it, well...

I think if you're a good engineer you'll get a good sound. That's what I think.

Quote:
The DAW point I made earlier in this thread, got poo-pooed, but I made that point to say that fundamentally it is still a PC running software, however reliable people were finding it. If you took the mixing and plugin's out of Nuendo or any other system, would that make them not a DAW?
Actually no...Does your PC running DAW software have an IZ Corp "Adrenaline" Recording Engine in it? I don't think that would be the case if you stripped down a DAW. It's not the same as a pure bit bucket. Maybe you can make it the same. What would you call it? Who would buy that? I'd bet no one would. The point of the RADAR is that it is a 24 Track self contained digital recording device [like a tape recorder] which is pretty much what they designed it to be. It is a feature rich product. You might not really appreciate all the features as they are, but as you say and others say...Your Mileage May Vary.
Old 20th September 2013
  #334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
I have had similar experiences as Sky...He's a long time Radar user...I don't think he needs to read posts by those people to "get it"....

Me? I Could care less what Ethan and other "experts" have to say about that...My experience with the gear matters more than hearsay scientists and their theories.
Ha ha Well put Adam. Ant [Sky] is a VERY qualified listener with quite discerning ears, and probably did his test 5-10 times before he was willing to pass a 'verdict'. Oh and definitely "gets it", all of it, and makes great sounding records. Not content to leave it alone or 'it's good enough', he is constantly striving to improve and upgrade. And cares little for non working 'professionals' who post but don't actually work in audio everyday...

Now as the son of a non-hearsay theoretical physicist, I have to say that just because we don't have the right measurement criteria, that doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist- we just don't understand it yet [see dark matter, and the standard model of the universe or the 'theory of everything' circa 1970's].

Way too many engineering friends of mine and other industry legends have agreed that Radar just sounds good/better. Be it clocking, mix engines [depth/speed/methodology/floating or sinking-ha], dithering & noise shaping [Ant and others maybe try what Bob O. suggests here on slutz and use a super high quality dither algorithm on each track...], internal "processing", or surprise really good analogue implementation [yes I know this wouldn't change with Ant's test], something is occurring here, the earth is not flat!

Best-
Jonathan
Old 20th September 2013
  #335
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
You need to read what Paul Frindle and Ethan Winer have to say about this and null tests. They have categorically stated that this isn't the case, the same is true about analogue as against digital eq.

I was talking to an engineer friend of mine who has had extensive experience of both Pro Tools and Radar. I mentioned about this thread (he's not a gearslutz subscriber), and he pretty much echoed my earlier comments in so much as good a product as Radar is, there is little point in it with the availability and reliability of modern DAW's.

It has been mentioned about "crashes", with DAW's, however, I can say that I neither of my last two PC based, Pro Tools systems have ever crashed on me. I would point out that these are dedicated systems that are not used for other computer functions such as email, web surfing or running other software.
interesting that you take the word of complete strangers on an internet forum instead of actually listening for yourself.

i dont care what they say, i know what i have heard and there is a difference. show me a test where they use the same setup i use and prove there is no difference.

why are you on this thread anyway?
why do you care so much about this discussion if you have already determined that there is nothing special about RADAR (despite having never used one).

for the record, it seems to me that there are some people here who have some agenda to slag the RADAR for reasons unclear to me.

here are my observations about RADAR.

- its a very flexible recording system that can be used as a stand alone 24 track recorder or 24 channels of AD/DA conversion for a DAW.

- it sounds great.

- it works all the time and never crashes.

- it has great metering and great vari speed which are both important to me.

- the company has amazing customer service.

whats the big deal here?

if it does not seem like something that will work for you, no worries.

i dont think most of the people who use RADAR are as cultish and devoted as people will make out here.
the things just work and sound great and if you make records for a living that is what you want.

for what its worth, i rarely use my RADAR as a stand alone recorder and i almost never mix off of it. i just use it as converters for my DAW and it works and sounds great. so much so, that i just dont even think about it.
instead i think about the music i am recording.
while stuff sounds a little better coming straight off the RADAR, the automation and editing in pro tools are usually more valuable to the final product than the slightly better sound of mixing straight off the RADAR.

its a tool.

like a hammer or screwdriver.

it is not meant to be loved or hated.

it is meant to make records.
Old 20th September 2013
  #336
FWIW, I put it to test myself years ago.

I recorded a Stereo file with RADAR ADC into the RADAR system,

Listened to it, off RADAR

Then I transferred the 24/96 file, DIGITALLY with the Ethernet port of RADAR, [had enough of doing real-time transfers, too much of a headache]

I proceeded to play the file from several different daw's, using different converters [PT, Logic, Reaper] AND the SAME EXACT PAIR OF RADAR CONVERTERS I was JUST USING...

The File sounded different every time! Even played through the same converters, the sound was different then the file just coming off RADAR. Every DAW and Every converter changed the sound. Every time. Repeatably. We stopped listening and finished the mix with RADAR converters.

They all sounded different. Clear as a bell, different.

You've have to be drunk to mis it,

And no, this difference I speak of, to me -- is not meaningful, or any reason to buy one piece of gear over the next. It is just comparing the differences.

Like I said,
If you're a good engineer, you'll get a good sound.
Old 20th September 2013
  #337
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
FWIW, I put it to test myself years ago.

I recorded a Stereo file with RADAR ADC into the RADAR system,

Listened to it, off RADAR

Then I transferred the 24/96 file, DIGITALLY with the Ethernet port of RADAR, [had enough of doing real-time transfers, to much of a headache]

I proceeded to play the file from several different daw's, using different converters [PT, Logic, Reaper] AND the SAME EXACT PAIR OF RADAR CONVERTERS I was JUST USING...

The File sounded different every time! Even played through the same converters, the sound was different then the file just coming off RADAR. Every DAW and Every converter changed the sound. Every time. Repeatably. We stopped listening and finished the mix with RADAR converters.

They all sounded different. Clear as a bell, different.

You've have to be drunk to miss it,

And no, this difference I speak of, to me -- is not meaningful, or any reason to buy one piece of gear over the next. It is just comparing the differences.

Like I said,
If you're a good engineer, you'll get a good sound.
SPOT ON.

could not have said it better myself.
Old 20th September 2013
  #338
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
- the company has amazing customer service.
I can't stress this enough. I bought a used Radar 24 off here 3 years ago. After a month, it wouldn't boot. I called IZ and spoke to Barry 2 or 3 times on fixing it. They even took the time to mail me a cd with BeOS on it so I could reinstall.

They didn't make a dime from me. Just wanted to ensure a user of their product was taken care of.

That alone has ensured that when I can afford it, I'm gonna move my converter cards over to a new Radar 6 so I can use the newer storage options and Madi.

And I should stress, mine was not a common problem. Even for a 13-14 year old computer system.
Old 20th September 2013
  #339
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j2dafo View Post
I can't stress this enough. I bought a used Radar 24 off here 3 years ago. After a month, it wouldn't boot. I called IZ and spoke to Barry 2 or 3 times on fixing it. They even took the time to mail me a cd with BeOS on it so I could reinstall.

They didn't make a dime from me. Just wanted to ensure a user of their product was taken care of.

That alone has ensured that when I can afford it, I'm gonna move my converter cards over to a new Radar 6 so I can use the newer storage options and Madi.

And I should stress, mine was not a common problem. Even for a 13-14 year old computer system.
Barry Henderson once called me from a hotel in San Fran at 10:30 PM just to make sure that my small RADAR problem had been solved that day and i was back up and running. i am talking about the owner of the company taking time to call someone late at night whom he does not know just to make sure everything was ok.
bear in mind, my RADAR is 10 years old and still they give this kind of customer service without blinking an eye.

IZ understands the working professional recording engineer and caters to them in ways that few other companies do...........
Old 20th September 2013
  #340
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
Exactly why my next purchase will be Radar 6 after having used Radar 4 since 2004. New features and ease of use. That Session controller rocks.

I also want to note that the last band I worked with said this to me..

"The last recording experience we had was horrific. It went over budget and took twice as long due to issues with the Engineer's hardware incompatibilities and hardware failures. This time around with you was a breeze for us. We showed up, things were ready to go and it flowed much quicker"

They also went on to say that they went right back to writing because they want to come back in January and record more material.

I don't know how you can get any better than that.

Thank you Barry and IZ
Old 20th September 2013
  #341
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post

RADAR.

its a tool.

like a hammer or screwdriver.

it is not meant to be loved or hated.

it is meant to make records.
Brilliant

Incredible explanation.

R.
Old 20th September 2013
  #342
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
FWIW, I put it to test myself years ago.

I recorded a Stereo file with RADAR ADC into the RADAR system,

Listened to it, off RADAR

Then I transferred the 24/96 file, DIGITALLY with the Ethernet port of RADAR, [had enough of doing real-time transfers, too much of a headache]

I proceeded to play the file from several different daw's, using different converters [PT, Logic, Reaper] AND the SAME EXACT PAIR OF RADAR CONVERTERS I was JUST USING...

The File sounded different every time! Even played through the same converters, the sound was different then the file just coming off RADAR. Every DAW and Every converter changed the sound. Every time. Repeatably. We stopped listening and finished the mix with RADAR converters.

They all sounded different. Clear as a bell, different.

You've have to be drunk to mis it,

And no, this difference I speak of, to me -- is not meaningful, or any reason to buy one piece of gear over the next. It is just comparing the differences.

Like I said,
If you're a good engineer, you'll get a good sound.
If you had done the test correctly, it's not possible. You really need to read digital 101 to understand why this is the case. If you are hearing a difference you are either "deluding yourself". expectation bias, etc, or you have made an error in the way that you are setting up the test.

See here Dispelling Popular Audio Myths
and here D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube this shows you what is exactly happening.

Read the White paper by Dan Lavry.

Search for the Paul Frindle thread on Gearslutz.

Quote:
interesting that you take the word of complete strangers on an internet forum instead of actually listening for yourself.

i dont care what they say, i know what i have heard and there is a difference. show me a test where they use the same setup i use and prove there is no difference.
These complete "strangers" you talk about, I've known on this and other forums for quite a few years, you should really find out who they are before you question them too much. Paul Frindle, for example, was one of the designers behind the SSL range of consoles including the digital ones, then he moved on to being one of the designers of the Sony Oxford console.

Quote:
why are you on this thread anyway?
why do you care so much about this discussion if you have already determined that there is nothing special about RADAR (despite having never used one).

for the record, it seems to me that there are some people here who have some agenda to slag the RADAR for reasons unclear to me.
Quite the opposite, I have owned a Radar and used several others as have many of my colleges. In it's time it was great, you couldn't record 24 tracks to digital using a hard disc any other way, of course this changed rapidly from 2000/1 onwards.

Quote:
here are my observations about RADAR.

- its a very flexible recording system that can be used as a stand alone 24 track recorder or 24 channels of AD/DA conversion for a DAW.

- it sounds great.

- it works all the time and never crashes.

- it has great metering and great vari speed which are both important to me.

- the company has amazing customer service.
It sounds good, better than everything else out there? Certainly not these days, there are plenty of good convertors in the market place these days and they are not expensive. Radar is pretty bullit proof, however, I have had crashes on a Mk1 and a friend of mine had occasional problems with a Mk II, pretty reliable though on the whole.

Quote:
whats the big deal here?

if it does not seem like something that will work for you, no worries.

i dont think most of the people who use RADAR are as cultish and devoted as people will make out here.
the things just work and sound great and if you make records for a living that is what you want.

for what its worth, i rarely use my RADAR as a stand alone recorder and i almost never mix off of it. i just use it as converters for my DAW and it works and sounds great. so much so, that i just dont even think about it.
instead i think about the music i am recording.
while stuff sounds a little better coming straight off the RADAR, the automation and editing in pro tools are usually more valuable to the final product than the slightly better sound of mixing straight off the RADAR.

its a tool.

like a hammer or screwdriver.

it is not meant to be loved or hated.

it is meant to make records.
It's very expensive to use as a convertor box, the transport function raised in this thread can easily be done with the Presonus Faderport and most DAW's, the editing is a bit "clunky" and its an expensive way to record 24 tracks. Maybe it is "buyer beware" when it comes to purchases, but I know a lot of well meaning musicians that look around forums like this for advice on what to buy so they can lay down some of their tracks. They are not running commercial facilities, just want to get decent sounds down.
Old 20th September 2013
  #343
Lives for gear
 

Seriously, beyond sound, workflow, and reliability.... How many presidents of a company will give you their cell phone number to contact them if there is a problem? Very few. Yet, avid charges money just for the privilege of calling them.
Old 20th September 2013
  #344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
If you had done the test correctly, it's not possible. You really need to read digital 101 to understand why this is the case. If you are hearing a difference you are either "deluding yourself". expectation bias, etc, or you have made an error in the way that you are setting up the test.

See here Dispelling Popular Audio Myths
and here D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube this shows you what is exactly happening.

Read the White paper by Dan Lavry.

Search for the Paul Frindle thread on Gearslutz.
I have 10+ years experience with Digital Audio, and understand it well, thanks.

Your links have no relevance to what I am discussing. They are off topic for this RADAR thread.

My test was done quite simply. I made up the parameters. Which I have explained.

That's the way I did it. Believe what, and who you like.

I have a similar issue with Logic9 on my Mac. It sounds different while in "input" than it does when you playback the music. It pisses me off so much I refuse to use it.

peace
a.j.b
Old 20th September 2013
  #345
Lives for gear
 

Ah,

Finally, some people who are really listening. I've experienced exactly what Skyblue and Doc Mixwell are talking about.

A slightly different setup, however.

Playback from Digital Performer (unity gain, no plugins or anything)>MOTU 2408 TDIF digital out into Radar II>out through Radar II converters.

vs.

Playback directly off Radar hard drive>Radar II converters.

Same exact converters. Same exact song. It sounds better directly off the Radar. No question about it. I can't explain why, but I know what I'm hearing. Clocking is the internal Radar clock in both circumstances.

I've mentioned this before and always get the same answers, that I'm fooling myself, or there is something wrong with my clocking etc.

Skyblue, have you done a loop back test?

Transferring something (real time digital transfer TDIF/ADAT) to Protools, then transferring it back (real time digital transfer) to the Radar HD, and a/bing that against the same track/s that haven't gone to the computer?

I have, and I can't tell the difference once it's back on the Radar HD. Which is really weird. Try it.
Old 20th September 2013
  #346
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
The File sounded different every time! Even played through the same converters, the sound was different then the file just coming off RADAR. Every DAW and Every converter changed the sound. Every time. Repeatably. We stopped listening and finished the mix with RADAR converters. They all sounded different. Clear as a bell, different. You've have to be drunk to miss it....Like I said, If you're a good engineer, you'll get a good sound........

I have 10+ years experience with Digital Audio, and understand it well, thanks. Your links have no relevance to what I am discussing....My test was done quite simply. I made up the parameters. Which I have explained. That's the way I did it. Believe what, and who you like....

I Could care less what Ethan and other "experts" have to say about that...My experience with the gear matters more than hearsay scientists and their theories.
So let me get this straight Doc. You claim that 'if you're a good engineer, you'll get a good sound' whilst also implying that a good engineer such as yourself, will without a doubt hear these 'clear as a bell' differences that you would 'have to be drunk to miss.' Then someone quite rightly asks you to back up these subjective (and logically controversial) statements with any form of substantive logical reasoning, possibly even with recourse to some real 'engineering' knowledge. You know, the kind that maybe someone like Paul Frindle or Dan Lavry would substantiate and confirm. And your choice is to say: "I have 10 years experience" without situating or grounding that experience in anything other than a personal and highly subjective claim. You then go on to say that you 'could care less' about what scientists and their theories would have to say.

Do you really think that it's ok for you to appropriate the use of the word 'engineer' in this context?

How can Roland's statements be considered off topic? His posts have directly dealt with the claim that DAW's do something deleterious to digital audio files that could conceivably result in an audible difference as distinct from the pristine Radar audio engine that makes everything sound like the aural equivalent of Unicorn tears. In addition to this he has outlined a simple cost-benefit analysis and proffered his opinion as to which way he leans.

As another poster stated: "Radar records audio digitally to hard disc. What magical thing do users think that Radar is doing that a modern high end DAW cannot do in that respect?" If you use comparable high-end converters, and there are plenty of great converters on the market, why are people slamming the perfectly reasonable claim that a DAW can do just as good a job at recording audio. Additional comments about Radar's limited editing capabilities and high cost given the power of modern DAW's seems pretty uncontroversial and a simple statement of fact.

If you use an analog console and don't want to deal with a DAW, then I'm sure that a Radar unit will do a great job as a solid recording medium with limited editing capabilities, albeit at a high price. The same can be achieved more cheaply with a DAW, however this view is constantly slammed by the Radar zealots. All Roland has said is that with Radar, you are paying a lot more for significantly less functionality. If you think that the Radar meters, vari-speed and elements of the user interface trump what a DAW has to offer, by all means use the Radar, but don't throw out the baby with the bath-water. Because you prefer elements of the Radar experience that are good, this does not logically make the DAW bad. That is flawed logic. Any claims about the Radar's apparent aural superiority need to be backed up.

Real engineers, including audio 'engineers', interrogate their own prejudices, and attempt to outwit their powerful expectation and confirmation bias, using ABX tests. They also back up their claims with sound rational arguments without resorting to sausage-measuring contests about how long they've been in the game and how they couldn't care less about perfectly reasonable points of debate. They also don't 'make up parameters' and then flippantly dismiss real objections off-hand.

Those claiming that the same digital audio signal sounds different coming off the Radar HDD versus the DAW HDD (even though it reads the same bits sent to the same Radar clock and DA in both cases), did you read the whole thread? Barry from iZ/Radar demonstrated earlier in the thread that Sonar spat out the same exact bits, however they had simply dropped in digital level (possibly due to pan-law issues with the one DAW he had access to and tested). Other than this drop in level, the files were exactly the same. Other mastering engineers have demonstrated the bit-perfect nature of a number of DAW's many times, so this point is moot.

Radar is a fine system. But it's just that. Another recording system. There are other options that may be a better fit. Is this statement really that controversial, and does it require the zealots to squash any dissenting opinions.

I often use a Mackie SDR as a backup recorder for a Madi signal originally generated by a Euphonix AM713 ADC. This HDR cost me US$400 and has never skipped a beat; neither has the primary Nuendo DAW system it is backing up. Horses for courses I guess.

The statement 'I know what I'm hearing' would have to be the most used and least understood statement on Gearslutz. Any serious student of human behavior and psychology knows that the easiest person to fool is oneself, especially when you have a personal, let alone a professional stake in the answer. This doesn't even take into account the serious problems with our aural acuity and aural memory that we constantly overestimate, despite mountains of proof against this claim.

Engineers and Golden Ears.
Will it ever end.
Looks unlikely.
Old 20th September 2013
  #347
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar


I think some people are missing the point here.

This is a thread about RADAR.

Doc wasn't trying to slight anyone. He is not the only to hear the differences.

Its about the sound.

Can we move on now?
Old 20th September 2013
  #348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
I have a similar issue with Logic9 on my Mac. It sounds different while in "input" than it does when you playback the music. It pisses me off so much I refuse to use it.
You must really hate tape

But seriously. Are you saying that input sounds exactly the same as playback when using Radar? Or pleasingly different?

My PT system sounds so similar on input and playback the differences are 100% moot in any real-world sense. I've used Radar, and it worked just fine. But as I said before, I personally didn't find it to be a magic thing, as is being claimed here my many.

I'm just trying to apply some epistemology here.
-How do we know what we know?
-Does Radar sound different than the input to you guys?
-Does it sound exactly the same?
-Is it doing something that makes the audio sound better than the input?
-Are all Radar aficionados hearing exactly the same thing, or all different things they like?
-Is this some sort of territory like "doubting Thomases go to a bad place and must be silenced?"

What's up?

That said, their support is worth a bundle. Company support generally sucks in this day and age. And one lost session can cost a business thousands.
Old 20th September 2013
  #349
Gear Maniac
 

The thread is called: What is it about Radar (that makes it sound the way it does, good bad or otherwise, and makes the company so revered)?

The obvious next question is, compared to what?

Surely that's what most posters have been discussing. How about you?

I actually admire Radar both as a company and as a product. I just haven't sworn blind allegiance to it. The times they are a changin' and Radar's position within the current audio-production landscape may be precarious, given recent developments in DAW technology and the raw power of native computer systems as well as trends in audio recording and audio production. I'm not sure how they are going as a company, and wish them well, but surely it is not out of order to discuss a piece of gear's pros and cons. This is Gearslutz isn't it?

I thought we were moving on. Maybe you can show me the way?

Oh...so it's about the sound. Thanks for that.
Like I said: 'I know what I hear' or do I? Interesting question.

Oh...and before I forget, thanks for the double face-palm.
Is that moving on? I can never tell.
Old 20th September 2013
  #350
I have two witnesses to my event, each hearing exactly as I have. Should I sequester them Judge?
Whatever the law's allow before we start the witch hunt

As you were....
Old 20th September 2013
  #351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
If you had done the test correctly, it's not possible. You really need to read digital 101 to understand why this is the case. If you are hearing a difference you are either "deluding yourself". expectation bias, etc, or you have made an error in the way that you are setting up the test.

See here Dispelling Popular Audio Myths
and here D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube this shows you what is exactly happening.
Hi Roland,

Sorry, but those links are not really what I would treat as a reference. Just browsing through Ethan Winers article, there are already a number of things that raise my eyebrows... I mean, "I am not embarrassed to admit that I can't hear any change between the source and playback on my Alesis ADAT, or on my Sony PCM-2300 DAT recorder"... !!

I am not surprised at Doc Mixwell's findings at all. I guess it is a popular myth, too, that digital equals digital. DAWs do not all treat the audio files the same way, as I am sure you know. I hope I am not wrong when remembering that e.g. Sonic Solutions was quite closed about what they did internally, and other companies are also not quite open.

We have to understand that professional audio does not care about model situations that can be recreated in scientific tests. And most of the results of such tests are commonly misquoted or misunderstood. I mainly work with classical music, but still sometimes have to do some weird gain rides and odd processing to get the result the artists requested. Sure, it would be great if everything could stay unity gain, and what comes in equals what goes out, but that is not usual practice in digital nor analogue audio.

I, myself, am intrigued by the RADAR converters, especially because in the past its users have not blown the thing out of proportion at all - on the contrary.

Best,
Dirk
Old 21st September 2013
  #352
Gear Maniac
 
readIcculus's Avatar
Glad to see this thread revived.

I am considering a Radar 6. I'm not sure if I should choose the Classic or Nyquist converters, I won't be recording higher than 24/96. Do the Nyquist cards provide a benefit beyond their 24/196 capability?
Old 21st September 2013
  #353
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by readIcculus View Post
Glad to see this thread revived.

I am considering a Radar 6. I'm not sure if I should choose the Classic or Nyquist converters, I won't be recording higher than 24/96. Do the Nyquist cards provide a benefit beyond their 24/196 capability?
The Nyquist are the 96K converters its the S Nyquist that go to 192K
Old 21st September 2013
  #354
Gear Maniac
 
readIcculus's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
The Nyquist are the 96K converters its the S Nyquist that go to 192K
So the IZ website is referring to the 96k Nyquist when they say "Classic 96"?

The Ultra Nyquist simply go up to 192khz and are otherwise identical the Classic 96k converters?

http://www.izcorp.com/products/ada/h...s/analogue-io/
Old 21st September 2013
  #355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
I have two witnesses to my event, each hearing exactly as I have. Should I sequester them Judge?
Whatever the law's allow before we start the witch hunt

As you were....
Haha! OK, never mind. Questions concerning details not allowed here. I should have already known.
Old 21st September 2013
  #356
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by readIcculus View Post
So the IZ website is referring to the 96k Nyquist when they say "Classic 96"?

The Ultra Nyquist simply go up to 192khz and are otherwise identical the Classic 96k converters?

Analogue I/O | iZ Technology
It looks like they changed the names. When I got my RADAR 24 Classic with the 48k, Nyquist 96K and S Nyquist was 192.

I'm selling my RADAR 24 with Nyquist (96k) converters BTW.
Old 21st September 2013
  #357
Gear Maniac
 
readIcculus's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
It looks like they changed the names. When I got my RADAR 24 Classic with the 48k, Nyquist 96K and S Nyquist was 192.

I'm selling my RADAR 24 with Nyquist (96k) converters BTW.
PM me with details if you can.

So I am still wondering, is there an advantage to the Ultra Nyquist if you don't plan to record at 192kHz?
Old 21st September 2013
  #358
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
Hi Roland,
Sorry, but those links are not really what I would treat as a reference. Just browsing through Ethan Winers article, there are already a number of things that raise my eyebrows... I mean, "I am not embarrassed to admit that I can't hear any change between the source and playback on my Alesis ADAT, or on my Sony PCM-2300 DAT recorder"... !!
I haven't had time to read those threads but that statement alone is killing me...and I made records on ADAT's for years, but could say that I ALWAYS heard the difference between monitoring and a/b/x testing the source and loop through the A>D&D>A, but the second part is even worse- hey the PCM-2500 and PCM-2300 were pretty weak sounding, even for DAT's IMO.

Also interesting on his website:

"Audio hardware: Focusrite Scarlett 8i6 and M-Audio Delta 66 sound cards, Mackie 1202 and Rane MP 24 mixers.
Microphones: 1 pair AKG C-451, 1 pair audio-technica AT-4033, DPA 4090."

** [IMO] Decent entry level interface and mixers, and mid-range mic's, quite usable not exactly high end...or not at all.

"Mixdown monitoring is through a pair of Crown PowerBase amplifiers (1,040 watts total), driving JBL 4430 bi-amplified studio monitors"

** IMO-SOTA 1984, okay, okay not SOTA, middlin'...

"Acoustic Treatment is far more important than gear, and I have plenty of bass traps as well as absorption at the first reflection points on the side walls and ceiling."

** IMO -Acoustic Treatment is very important, but so is gear...

*Owners of these pieces, please don't take offense- It's just that I'm not as surprised he's no hearing any differences given his signal path and monitors. This IS the high-end forum after all...

Blind, repeatable, A/B/X testing is critical, as is matching level and path exactly and making sure that all things are totally equal.

Re Drumsound-
"I'm selling my RADAR 24 with Nyquist (96k) converters BTW."
Reading between the lines -Tony that means you are pretty happy with your Orion ? Ant had asked about it vs the Radar for his own quests.

Finally-
Adam is an extremely sincere, honest, and knowledgeable Engineer [and sales professional] who happens to sell gear and has very good ears. If he says he hears it, and Ant says he hears it, and 3 other people I respect say they hear it, I believe them. I'm pretty sure it's not "precedence", anticipation, or Stockholm syndrome... And you know what? He puts his name in his signature, which means he is putting his rep on the line.

Let's also all try and respect each other and not chase away professionals [or anyone] who posts knowledgeably. We have lost too many valuable posters who are fed up with they way they get treated. I know I sound like a broken record, but hey it cost's nothing to be nice, really. Really.


Best-
Jonathan
Old 21st September 2013
  #359
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by readIcculus View Post
So the IZ website is referring to the 96k Nyquist when they say "Classic 96"?

The Ultra Nyquist simply go up to 192khz and are otherwise identical the Classic 96k converters?

Analogue I/O | iZ Technology
They are not identical. Classic converter cards are classic converter cards. The kept the design but extended them to 96k. The Ultra-Nyquist cards "build on" the Nyquist and S-Nyquist design and consequently replace them.

So you have Classic cards that go up to 96k, and Ultra_Nyquist cards that go up to 192k. Different designs. I haven't heard the Nyquist cards so I can't comment on them.
Old 21st September 2013
  #360
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
Hi Roland,

Sorry, but those links are not really what I would treat as a reference. Just browsing through Ethan Winers article, there are already a number of things that raise my eyebrows... I mean, "I am not embarrassed to admit that I can't hear any change between the source and playback on my Alesis ADAT, or on my Sony PCM-2300 DAT recorder"... !!

I am not surprised at Doc Mixwell's findings at all. I guess it is a popular myth, too, that digital equals digital. DAWs do not all treat the audio files the same way, as I am sure you know. I hope I am not wrong when remembering that e.g. Sonic Solutions was quite closed about what they did internally, and other companies are also not quite open.

We have to understand that professional audio does not care about model situations that can be recreated in scientific tests. And most of the results of such tests are commonly misquoted or misunderstood. I mainly work with classical music, but still sometimes have to do some weird gain rides and odd processing to get the result the artists requested. Sure, it would be great if everything could stay unity gain, and what comes in equals what goes out, but that is not usual practice in digital nor analogue audio.

I, myself, am intrigued by the RADAR converters, especially because in the past its users have not blown the thing out of proportion at all - on the contrary.

Best,
Dirk
That different convertors can sound slightly different, and that some people can hear those differences, still in the blind ABX testing rarely can people pick out the same convertors with any degree of reliability. However this isn't the thrust of Ethans particular argument. The same digits played back on two systems through the same convertors, must sound the same. It's the same argument about digital summing, it's perfect, it can't be anything else. All the arguments about frequencies close to Nyquist are also proven to be wrong, (watch the second link after Ethans, this is a hoot and should be required reading for all engineers).

Ten years in audio, what do I care, I've done nearly 34 and I can tell you that I'm suspicious of anyone that claims they can hear it all, because those are the ones that usually can't hear the basics. I've always found that good subjective results can be backed up with good technical specifications. The second link I posted shows some of that, as does Ethans conference demonstrations.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump