The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is it about RADAR?
Old 21st September 2013
  #361
All due respect to you Roland, but your comments and links don't deal at all with my personal experiences in the studio working with this gear.

The RADAR is for engineers who RECORD Performances for Bands, and mix them without computerizing all their parts and the sound they get. You patch analog outboard gear on a console with it. The DAW mixer units are for engineers who EDIT Performances for Bands...computerize audio, process it from a cozy little universe inside HAL2000. "I can't let you do that, Adam"...

Annnnnnd then it lets me add 398 Bomb Factory Plugs on my session. I don't need that, WHY do I have it? I use PT as minimally as I can. I do a lot of editing and audio construction for my paying clients so I have to use a DAW. But I do like hybrid. It works for me. Though I admit that sometimes Apple-Shift-N makes me want to fly the chicken coop.

DAW's are needed to process things on a larger wider scale. Record more inputs, Have more manipulation ability. Slice, Dice, Dissect, Suspect, Deselect, so they deserve sum respect. But for the times when I am recording very high quality performances from musicians PLAYING TOGETHER in a good room, with good gear and an analog console, I prefer Radar. Yea, I can do the same on my Mac Pro/PT-Apogee Rig. With 192 tracks, bells and every whistle on the shelf, Radar has a vibe, when your working with, it and a console -- I think you'll see.
Old 21st September 2013
  #362
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
All due respect to you Roland, but your comments and links don't deal at all with my personal experiences in the studio working with this gear.

The RADAR is for engineers who RECORD Performances for Bands, and mix them without computerizing all their parts and the sound they get. You patch analog outboard gear on a console with it. The DAW mixer units are for engineers who EDIT Performances for Bands...computerize audio, process it from a cozy little universe inside HAL2000. "I can't let you do that, Adam"...

Annnnnnd then it lets me add 398 Bomb Factory Plugs on my session. I don't need that, WHY do I have it? I use PT as minimally as I can. I do a lot of editing and audio construction for my paying clients so I have to use a DAW. But I do like hybrid. It works for me. Though I admit that sometimes Apple-Shift-N makes me want to fly the chicken coop.

DAW's are needed to process things on a larger wider scale. Record more inputs, Have more manipulation ability. Slice, Dice, Dissect, Suspect, Deselect, so they deserve sum respect. But for the times when I am recording very high quality performances from musicians PLAYING TOGETHER in a good room, with good gear and an analog console, I prefer Radar. Yea, I can do the same on my Mac Pro/PT-Apogee Rig. With 192 tracks, bells and every whistle on the shelf, Radar has a vibe, when your working with, it and a console -- I think you'll see.
The studio in NY I've been recording at for the last ten years (as a jazz artist) is a radar room. They just upgraded to a V from a II. Radar and an mci console and a ton of old RCA and neumann mics. And a great room and Errol garner's old Steinway. It is extremely easy to record there. The workflow is super efficient so you never lose a moment or a take. I've worked in many PT rooms on both sides of the glass and the workflow just isn't there. When you're "assembling" a performance, the PT thing is helpful, dare I say necessary, but for capturing performances on the spot I'll take a radar any day.

And their converters sound ridiculously good. Even the older ones.
Old 21st September 2013
  #363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
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.
In principle, I agree with you. I was just saying that not all systems treat the audio the same, especially when through the mixer - this is really not a very transparent field. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that the bits will be the same in different systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Ten years in audio, what do I care, I've done nearly 34
Was that directed at me..?

Best,
Dirk
Old 21st September 2013
  #364
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
All due respect to you Roland, but your comments and links don't deal at all with my personal experiences in the studio working with this gear.

The RADAR is for engineers who RECORD Performances for Bands, and mix them without computerizing all their parts and the sound they get....The DAW mixer units are for engineers who EDIT Performances for Bands...computerize audio, process it from a cozy little universe inside HAL2000. "I can't let you do that, Adam"...

Radar has a vibe, when your working with, it and a console -- I think you'll see.
How could anyone's comments and links deal with your 'personal experiences' with 'this gear' if you are unwilling to entertain any possibilities outside your own firm preconceptions? This is a circular form of argument, designed to curtail any substantive debate. Making such a personal claim does not make any of your following statements more true, just because their 'your' statements.

Despite strenuous reports to the contrary, daw's have been known to record musical performances without extensive editing. I did it just yesterday. Quick, call the daw police! It's simply a matter of exercising some self discipline. Editing versus straight recording is a function of the choices made by the engineer at the helm. There's that word again, engineer, someone apparently doing some engineering. I would have thought that this involves, if only tangentially, an understanding of some fundamental acoustic principles and of what happens to these acoustic signals once they have been converted into digital audio data streams. Whether these data streams reside on one hard disc or another, there are certain basic principles of digital audio that are not really up for debate. Digital audio storage and manipulation would simply not work at all if these principles did not hold true. If these fundamental principles aren't of interest to you or are not up for debate, then how can you be taken seriously when attempting to argue for a particular point of view. Especially when this thread is about the differences between systems that convert and store audio data digitally. Different systems have different strengths and weaknesses, but simply ignoring these differences as well as the things they have in common is a strange thing for an engineer to do, especially when a choice between these systems could involve some serious expenditure. If it's all down to one's personal bias or some form of homogenised group-think then this is isn't going to be a discussion, it's going to be an advertisement.

As regards Kubrick and the Hal trope, that film was partly about humanity moving from an ape like approach of brutal force to attempting to understand and control the world and the possible dangers this entails. Especially when computers are involved! Using Hal as an example of the fragility of the Daw approach is funny I guess, but espousing a personal 'vibe' approach to audio engineering could also be seen as funny in it's own way.

Ps I believe Roland has stated that he used and possibly even owned a Radar system in the past. He then made a choice based on a cost benefit analysis to move to another system. Choices. Use them wisely. Kind of like words.
Old 21st September 2013
  #365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post

The RADAR is for engineers who RECORD Performances for Bands, and mix them without computerizing all their parts and the sound they get. You patch analog outboard gear on a console with it.

Radar has a vibe, when your working with, it and a console -- I think you'll see.
Radar + Console = FUN


Quote:
Originally Posted by nnajar View Post
The studio in NY I've been recording at for the last ten years (as a jazz artist) is a radar room. They just upgraded to a V from a II. Radar and an mci console and a ton of old RCA and neumann mics. And a great room and Errol garner's old Steinway. It is extremely easy to record there. The workflow is super efficient so you never lose a moment or a take. I've worked in many PT rooms on both sides of the glass and the workflow just isn't there. When you're "assembling" a performance, the PT thing is helpful, dare I say necessary, but for capturing performances on the spot I'll take a radar any day.

And their converters sound ridiculously good. Even the older ones.
That has been my experience so far...not a workflow end all for everybody.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyman View Post


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?
yep
Old 21st September 2013
  #366
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
In principle, I agree with you. I was just saying that not all systems treat the audio the same, especially when through the mixer - this is really not a very transparent field. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that the bits will be the same in different systems.
Various tests have been done over the years, and most I seem to remember showed that in spite of our contention that DAW's sound different, null tests prove they don't. Our expectations and the way we perceive how we want to use systems might make us use them differently causing us to "mix" sessions differently.


Quote:
Was that directed at me..?

Best,
No, it was Doc Mixwell who stated that it was his 10 + years of experience that made him the listening expert. My 34 years, tells me that I still have a lot to learn. I'm sure you know the famous audio engineering quote about adjusting the eq and it sounded better, only to notice that the eq was bypassed...... All engineers have done it, if they claim not too, they have either, not done enough or they are lying.
Dirk
Old 21st September 2013
  #367
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nnajar View Post
The studio in NY I've been recording at for the last ten years (as a jazz artist) is a radar room. They just upgraded to a V from a II. Radar and an mci console and a ton of old RCA and neumann mics. And a great room and Errol garner's old Steinway. It is extremely easy to record there. The workflow is super efficient so you never lose a moment or a take. I've worked in many PT rooms on both sides of the glass and the workflow just isn't there. When you're "assembling" a performance, the PT thing is helpful, dare I say necessary, but for capturing performances on the spot I'll take a radar any day.

And their converters sound ridiculously good. Even the older ones.
I'm not the quickest on Pro Tools or Pyramix, however, I record a lot of Jazz and other straight projects, never found that DAW's were any slower than anything else, just arm the tracks and press record, Radar is exactly the same.
Old 22nd September 2013
  #368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I'm not the quickest on Pro Tools or Pyramix, however, I record a lot of Jazz and other straight projects, never found that DAW's were any slower than anything else, just arm the tracks and press record, Radar is exactly the same.
Of course.

Some people hate computers and want nothing to do with them at any cost. I guess I can understand that, but computers never got under my skin. I can use my PT any way I want. Its functional capabilities do not dictate to me how it is used. I use it.

Radar is very clearly marketed to engineers who want the functionality of a tape-based studio, i.e. still want to use their boards and outboard gear exactly as they did in 1980, but do not want to deal with tape machines. That's cool. But to makes claims that all radar user focus on the music art, and all DAW users focus on abusing a DAW's capabilities at the expense of the art reveals a level of tunnel vision that will not be derailed by common sense or logic. Every experienced and talented musical artist I've ever know has mainly aimed at focusing on the music, regardless of what gear they are using at any given moment.

In actuality, if people think their stuff is better, even in undefinable ways, that's probably a good thing overall. Everyone does better work within his or her comfort zone, and gear can make or break that.
Old 22nd September 2013
  #369
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post


In actuality, if people think their stuff is better, even in undefinable ways, that's probably a good thing overall. Everyone does better work within his or her comfort zone, and gear can make or break that.
well said
Old 22nd September 2013
  #370
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
"No, it was Doc Mixwell who stated that it was his 10 + years of experience that made him the listening expert"

Honestly Roland, I really want to get your take on things, but this is the second time you misquoted someone, first me and now Doc Mixwell..

The guy never claimed to be a "listening expert".

So, please - would you stop...?

Thanks
Old 23rd September 2013
  #371
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyman View Post
"No, it was Doc Mixwell who stated that it was his 10 + years of experience that made him the listening expert"

Honestly Roland, I really want to get your take on things, but this is the second time you misquoted someone, first me and now Doc Mixwell..

The guy never claimed to be a "listening expert".

So, please - would you stop...?

Thanks
I think the Doc is quite capable of defending himself.

In fairness he implied that with 10 + years experience he considered himself qualified. I was being mildly tongue in cheek when I referred to the comment he made, particularly when he made a claim to hearing a difference that technically can't exist, unless he fundamentally made an error in the way the test was conducted.

Perhaps I am coming off as harsh, however, this industry has suffered a lot due to half truth's, and just plain bad information put about by those who make wildly, vague, allegations as to how equipment performs.

I really strongly urge those that haven't seen the two links I posted above to take a look. Whatever you think of the equipment that Ethan used in some of his tests, the listening demonstrations that he performed on the Youtube video clearly prove his points. The other video is a must for explaining bit depth, how this relates to tape resolution, sampling rates and Nyquist theorem, and goes a long way to showing why every increasing sampling rates are of little practical benefit. It also shows the benefit of noise shaped dither in a very straight forward way. All of this information is regularly misrepresented in this and other forums, these video's show the truth in a very easily digested method.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #372
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
Quote:
Radar is very clearly marketed to engineers who want the functionality of a tape-based studio, i.e. still want to use their boards and outboard gear exactly as they did in 1980, but do not want to deal with tape machines.
You mean 1995? Sure. Let's see, I think many here stopped using tape in 98'ish? Maybe 97...but, what's 15-20 years....oh, yeah--and for the most part it was still an editable deck...until budgets went into the toilet, no one had any reason to look to digital mixers.

Carry on. Just had to correct the timeframe. What's 20 years out of a history of recording that goes back 50 or 60? Antiques, those folks, I tell you!
Old 23rd September 2013
  #373
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
Not defending anyone, just don't like when things are taken out of context.

Maybe you should rent a Radar and perform the test for yourself? Then get back to us on your findings.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #374
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyman View Post
Not defending anyone, just don't like when things are taken out of context.

Maybe you should rent a Radar and perform the test for yourself? Then get back to us on your findings.
And perhaps you should read the thread more carefully.

I have used many Radar units and I also used to own one!

All that aside, I don't need to perform the test, not unless the laws of physics have changed.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #375
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
And perhaps you should read the thread more carefully.

I have used many Radar units and I also used to own one!

All that aside, I don't need to perform the test, not unless the laws of physics have changed.
Actually, I can read just fine. I know you used a Radar before. If you actually read what I wrote.

I was asking you to go back and debunk what a lot of others were saying they heard with their own ears. Maybe it might open your eyes..
Old 23rd September 2013
  #376
Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
You mean 1995? Sure. Let's see, I think many here stopped using tape in 98'ish? Maybe 97...but, what's 15-20 years....oh, yeah--and for the most part it was still an editable deck...until budgets went into the toilet, no one had any reason to look to digital mixers.

Carry on. Just had to correct the timeframe. What's 20 years out of a history of recording that goes back 50 or 60? Antiques, those folks, I tell you!
Well, yeah.

I started dabbling with Sony DASH multitrack in the mid 80's and stopped using analog altogether by about '92.

I was thinking that about 79 or 80 was when tape was still total king, even though 3M digi stuff was already out there.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #377
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyman View Post
Actually, I can read just fine.
Seriously? Whilst I recognize that selective quoting taken out of context may be de rigueur here on Gearslutz, I tend to favor reading what people have to say within the context in which it is said. I'm not sure which portions of text you have decided to selectively misread, however falling back on what people claim to have "heard with their own ears" is not a form of reasoning that holds up to any serious scrutiny. Especially when this 'hearing' flies in the face of all that is known about how digital audio works.

If people are unwilling to entertain the notions that confirmation and expectation bias do exist, and are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that certain facts about the nature of digital audio are not up for debate, then all that is left to rely on are your own prejudices. This leads to advertisements, not debates, when discussing the relative merits of the gear we use.

If you own a piece of gear and think that it's great, well great. Keep using it. But this does not mean that you can make up your own facts to bolster your subjective opinion. To quote Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts...What is not discussed, will not be advanced." If you aren't up for rational debate, irrationality isn't the answer.

And what is it with people giving relevant and substantive posts a thumbs down. Can posters not respond to the points being made? Why resort to a childish thumbs down to 'score a point' rather than simply making one. How about spelling out an objection with a logical argument.

I have nothing against Radar. I believe they are well engineered, reliable machines with a customer service record that should be applauded. This does not however mean that using a daw system is comparatively worse. It's just different. Each approach has its own merits, flaws and workflow. You can make a rational choice between these alternatives. I just don't understand why people need to justify their love for these products by fervently denouncing other approaches, or falling back on unverifiable subjective claims that are dubious at best. Criticizing established facts about digital audio by pointing to the items in someone's studio is also a ridiculous notion. Ad hominem attacks like these and a thumbs down serve no purpose other than to make one's 'points' even less persuasive.

This thread is apparently about Radar. Some people have questioned it as a value-for-money proposition, others have praised its positive workflow, whilst others feel the need to criticize other forms of digital audio data recording to bolster the position of Radar. Shouldn't it stand on it's own merits?

And now, we return you back to your regular scheduled programming. You may now once again selectively misquote, misread or feel personally aggrieved about some criticism of the gear you use or bought, as you deem fit.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #378
Lives for gear
 
Sofa King's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
All due respect to you Roland, but your comments and links don't deal at all with my personal experiences in the studio working with this gear.

The RADAR is for engineers who RECORD Performances for Bands, and mix them without computerizing all their parts and the sound they get. You patch analog outboard gear on a console with it. The DAW mixer units are for engineers who EDIT Performances for Bands...computerize audio, process it from a cozy little universe inside HAL2000. "I can't let you do that, Adam"...

Annnnnnd then it lets me add 398 Bomb Factory Plugs on my session. I don't need that, WHY do I have it? I use PT as minimally as I can. I do a lot of editing and audio construction for my paying clients so I have to use a DAW. But I do like hybrid. It works for me. Though I admit that sometimes Apple-Shift-N makes me want to fly the chicken coop.

DAW's are needed to process things on a larger wider scale. Record more inputs, Have more manipulation ability. Slice, Dice, Dissect, Suspect, Deselect, so they deserve sum respect. But for the times when I am recording very high quality performances from musicians PLAYING TOGETHER in a good room, with good gear and an analog console, I prefer Radar. Yea, I can do the same on my Mac Pro/PT-Apogee Rig. With 192 tracks, bells and every whistle on the shelf, Radar has a vibe, when your working with, it and a console -- I think you'll see.
Not sure I agree with your assertion as to how Radar owners do or should work.

Ive been a Radar guy for a long time, as well as a PT guy.
I got the Radar because it sounded better than anything else you could buy.
I got PT because it allowed me flexibility with an audio performance, and quicker recall that I never had with my previous tape/ all analog setup.

That being said, sometimes I record bands all at once,and sometimes, individually.
Sometimes its a very organic process and sometimes it isnt.
Regardless, Im always shooting for the best sounding, most flexible options for capturing either style of production.

and IMO, the combo of Radar and PT fit the bill.


Best,
Sean
Old 23rd September 2013
  #379
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
Yes, Seriously... Not trying to sling mud here.

People who actually tested the Radar under certain conditions in their own studios and came out with the same results - get called to the podium to explain themselves.

I then ask someone (Roland) to go back and perform the test in their own studio with the same gear to debunk the whole "this is theoretically impossible"

Now, I am under fire for trying to come up with resolution....

Your missing the point.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban Studios View Post
How could anyone's comments and links deal with your 'personal experiences' with 'this gear' if you are unwilling to entertain any possibilities outside your own firm preconceptions? This is a circular form of argument, designed to curtail any substantive debate. Making such a personal claim does not make any of your following statements more true, just because their 'your' statements.

Despite strenuous reports to the contrary, daw's have been known to record musical performances without extensive editing. I did it just yesterday. Quick, call the daw police! It's simply a matter of exercising some self discipline. Editing versus straight recording is a function of the choices made by the engineer at the helm. There's that word again, engineer, someone apparently doing some engineering. I would have thought that this involves, if only tangentially, an understanding of some fundamental acoustic principles and of what happens to these acoustic signals once they have been converted into digital audio data streams. Whether these data streams reside on one hard disc or another, there are certain basic principles of digital audio that are not really up for debate. Digital audio storage and manipulation would simply not work at all if these principles did not hold true. If these fundamental principles aren't of interest to you or are not up for debate, then how can you be taken seriously when attempting to argue for a particular point of view. Especially when this thread is about the differences between systems that convert and store audio data digitally. Different systems have different strengths and weaknesses, but simply ignoring these differences as well as the things they have in common is a strange thing for an engineer to do, especially when a choice between these systems could involve some serious expenditure. If it's all down to one's personal bias or some form of homogenised group-think then this is isn't going to be a discussion, it's going to be an advertisement.

As regards Kubrick and the Hal trope, that film was partly about humanity moving from an ape like approach of brutal force to attempting to understand and control the world and the possible dangers this entails. Especially when computers are involved! Using Hal as an example of the fragility of the Daw approach is funny I guess, but espousing a personal 'vibe' approach to audio engineering could also be seen as funny in it's own way.

Ps I believe Roland has stated that he used and possibly even owned a Radar system in the past. He then made a choice based on a cost benefit analysis to move to another system. Choices. Use them wisely. Kind of like words.
Sorry Suburban Studios, I don't eat Troll Bait. I did just come home from the Dentist so I am not supposed to eat for a couple hours. At this point, I would much rather go back there and have em drill me up some more, than debate with you. I'm not into it. Find someone else to post fight with. I'm about to put you on ignore, unless you have something relevant to add.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
No, it was Doc Mixwell who stated that it was his 10 + years of experience that made him the listening expert. My 34 years, tells me that I still have a lot to learn. I'm sure you know the famous audio engineering quote about adjusting the eq and it sounded better, only to notice that the eq was bypassed...... All engineers have done it, if they claim not too, they have either, not done enough or they are lying.
Your comment earlier about "learning digital 101", was out of pocket.

So I tried to educate you about my past decade of experience with digital audio. Never once have I claimed to be a "listening expert"....

What does "Equalizing while in Bypass" have anything to do with it?

Nothing. Again, you are out of line here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I think the Doc is quite capable of defending himself.

In fairness he implied that with 10 + years experience he considered himself qualified. I was being mildly tongue in cheek when I referred to the comment he made, particularly when he made a claim to hearing a difference that technically can't exist, unless he fundamentally made an error in the way the test was conducted.

Perhaps I am coming off as harsh, however, this industry has suffered a lot due to half truth's, and just plain bad information put about by those who make wildly, vague, allegations as to how equipment performs.

I really strongly urge those that haven't seen the two links I posted above to take a look. Whatever you think of the equipment that Ethan used in some of his tests, the listening demonstrations that he performed on the Youtube video clearly prove his points. The other video is a must for explaining bit depth, how this relates to tape resolution, sampling rates and Nyquist theorem, and goes a long way to showing why every increasing sampling rates are of little practical benefit. It also shows the benefit of noise shaped dither in a very straight forward way. All of this information is regularly misrepresented in this and other forums, these video's show the truth in a very easily digested method.
I preformed a test within the confines of my studio with the hardware. I had tons of different converters, a RADAR, musicians and music. We also were in a good room with great gear and very accurate monitoring. The Two other people in the room with me, had the exact same experience as me. We all heard the DAW change the sound with the same converters. Your points have nothing to do with it.

Sampling rate? Bit Depth? Dither? Are you lost?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban Studios View Post
Seriously? Whilst I recognize that selective quoting taken out of context may be de rigueur here on Gearslutz, I tend to favor reading what people have to say within the context in which it is said. I'm not sure which portions of text you have decided to selectively misread, however falling back on what people claim to have "heard with their own ears" is not a form of reasoning that holds up to any serious scrutiny. Especially when this 'hearing' flies in the face of all that is known about how digital audio works.

If people are unwilling to entertain the notions that confirmation and expectation bias do exist, and are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that certain facts about the nature of digital audio are not up for debate, then all that is left to rely on are your own prejudices. This leads to advertisements, not debates, when discussing the relative merits of the gear we use.

If you own a piece of gear and think that it's great, well great. Keep using it. But this does not mean that you can make up your own facts to bolster your subjective opinion. To quote Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts...What is not discussed, will not be advanced." If you aren't up for rational debate, irrationality isn't the answer.

And what is it with people giving relevant and substantive posts a thumbs down. Can posters not respond to the points being made? Why resort to a childish thumbs down to 'score a point' rather than simply making one. How about spelling out an objection with a logical argument.

I have nothing against Radar. I believe they are well engineered, reliable machines with a customer service record that should be applauded. This does not however mean that using a daw system is comparatively worse. It's just different. Each approach has its own merits, flaws and workflow. You can make a rational choice between these alternatives. I just don't understand why people need to justify their love for these products by fervently denouncing other approaches, or falling back on unverifiable subjective claims that are dubious at best. Criticizing established facts about digital audio by pointing to the items in someone's studio is also a ridiculous notion. Ad hominem attacks like these and a thumbs down serve no purpose other than to make one's 'points' even less persuasive.

This thread is apparently about Radar. Some people have questioned it as a value-for-money proposition, others have praised its positive workflow, whilst others feel the need to criticize other forms of digital audio data recording to bolster the position of Radar. Shouldn't it stand on it's own merits?

And now, we return you back to your regular scheduled programming. You may now once again selectively misquote, misread or feel personally aggrieved about some criticism of the gear you use or bought, as you deem fit.
Thumbs down's are likely being giving because no one has claimed what you are trying to argue. Out of context and mis quoted. All well and good...but seem's that you like to Argue out of context as well. Wondering how you can "jump into my skin" and understand my human perceptions. Like I said, I'd rather have my teeth drilled before I continue to have a "relevant" conversation with you.

I don't care that you find the world is Black and White. That's your business. I owe you nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofa King View Post
Not sure I agree with your assertion as to how Radar owners do or should work.
Just my 2 Cents on it. I do agree that I need to have a DAW system along side a RADAR. Whatever way you want to use this gear, is certainly up to you.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #381
Lives for gear
 

One other thing that is wonderful about Radar is the way it handles input monitoring. When you drop into record, it switches the output to the input source, so you don't have any latency, like on a tape machine that switches from the play head to the input. With a PT HD system you don't get system latency, but you still get a small amount of converter latency, but with the Radar system it sounds and acts just like tape, which is helpful and important in tracking.

And the converters sound damn damn good.

And the session controller is ridiculously quick to use- one of the major strengths of the system is the session controller and its implementation and that is what makes radar more efficient than a PT rig, even a PT rig with a console in the hands of a skilled operator. Which is important when you're tracking a band off the floor.

I not saying it is better, but I sure think it is better.

Life is real easy when you don't even have to transfer to the daw for editing because the performances are that good that you can just go to mix. Talk about getting work done fast!
Old 23rd September 2013
  #382
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyman View Post
Yes, Seriously... Not trying to sling mud here.

People who actually tested the Radar under certain conditions in their own studios and came out with the same results - get called to the podium to explain themselves.

I then ask someone (Roland) to go back and perform the test in their own studio with the same gear to debunk the whole "this is theoretically impossible"

Now, I am under fire for trying to come up with resolution....

Your missing the point.
I'm trying to be nice here, but this isn't about it being "theoretically impossible", it's physically impossible, unless you know something that every electronic engineer and physics scientist on the planet doesn't.

The alternatives are, that you think you are hearing a difference because of "expectation bias or you have made such a mess of conducting a basic test, you are doing something that is changing the audio. The last option pretty much means you shouldn't be allowed to play with sharp things, let alone audio.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #383
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

this thread has been turned into a total turd by a couple trolls who keep putting all kinds of words in the mouths of hard working professional audio engineers.

without addressing any of the many asinine comments made here by said trolls, i will once again reiterate my feelings about RADAR as a user of it and many other (analog and digital) recording systems.

first of all, not one RADAR user here has said it is a magic machine that turns **** into gold. the people who use RADARs and comment here seem to be no nonsense professionals who like the way it sounds and functions.
PERIOD.

the trolls on this forum have come along and made it seem like people who use RADAR have some sort of cultish devotion to it and think it is an all powerful mystical tool of magic that no other recording system can touch.....
quite the contrary.
its really easy to make a terrible recording with a RADAR or any other system and as i read through the comments i cannot find one RADAR user making claims of magic or pixie dust, but i do find a few trolls consistently putting those words into people’s mouths.

i bought a RADAR because it sounded better than everything i compared it to, it was very flexible in that it could be used as a stand alone 24 track or as AD/DA for a DAW, and it had great metering and varispeed functions which are important to me. i paid MUCH less than one would pay for a 24 I/O Pro Tools HD system to get a RADAR 24 and an RME RAYDAT card. this hybrid Pro Tools/RADAR system has worked almost flawlessly from day 1 and sounds incredible.

that is that.

after explaining this once before, people still insisted on coming on here and calling RADAR users “dinosaurs” or insinuating that they are delusional for thinking that RADARs sound and work great.
i do not understand this mentality at all.

there really is no argument that RADAR sounds great, is super flexible and are built like tanks to last for a long time. people who use them regularly understand this and that is why they like them. it has nothing to do with fairy dust or magic and everything to do with making records on a day to day basis.

ideally one uses a RADAR WITH a DAW, like Doc and i do, and gets the best of both worlds.

its a recorder.
its converters.
it sounds nice and works.
its not going to change anyone’s life all that much either way.

good day.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #384
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I'm trying to be nice here, but this isn't about it being "theoretically impossible", it's physically impossible, unless you know something that every electronic engineer and physics scientist on the planet doesn't.

The alternatives are, that you think you are hearing a difference because of "expectation bias or you have made such a mess of conducting a basic test, you are doing something that is changing the audio. The last option pretty much means you shouldn't be allowed to play with sharp things, let alone audio.
please explain to me why it is physically impossible in scientific terms?
Old 23rd September 2013
  #385
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
Session this past weekend
Users commented on how quick we were jumping back and forth to record and edit and they loved the sound. Punch in and out's were flawless.

No hiccups.

At the end of the session, clients thank me for enjoyable recording experience. No crashes, no hardware/software incompatibility, no dying iloks- no drama.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #386
Gear Maniac
 
Remy Leloup's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
this thread has been turned into a total turd by a couple trolls who keep putting all kinds of words in the mouths of hard working professional audio engineers.

without addressing any of the many asinine comments made here by said trolls, i will once again reiterate my feelings about RADAR as a user of it and many other (analog and digital) recording systems.

first of all, not one RADAR user here has said it is a magic machine that turns **** into gold. the people who use RADARs and comment here seem to be no nonsense professionals who like the way it sounds and functions.
PERIOD.

the trolls on this forum have come along and made it seem like people who use RADAR have some sort of cultish devotion to it and think it is an all powerful mystical tool of magic that no other recording system can touch.....
quite the contrary.
its really easy to make a terrible recording with a RADAR or any other system and as i read through the comments i cannot find one RADAR user making claims of magic or pixie dust, but i do find a few trolls consistently putting those words into people’s mouths.

i bought a RADAR because it sounded better than everything i compared it to, it was very flexible in that it could be used as a stand alone 24 track or as AD/DA for a DAW, and it had great metering and varispeed functions which are important to me. i paid MUCH less than one would pay for a 24 I/O Pro Tools HD system to get a RADAR 24 and an RME RAYDAT card. this system has worked almost flawlessly from day 1 and sounds incredible.

that is that.

after explaining this once before, people still insisted on coming on here and calling RADAR users “dinosaurs” or insinuating that they are delusional for thinking that RADARs sound and work great.
i do not understand this mentality at all.

there really is no argument that RADAR sounds great, is super flexible and are built like tanks to last for a long time. people who use them regularly understand this and that is why they like them. it has nothing to do with fairy dust or magic and everything to do with making records on a day to day basis.

ideally one uses a RADAR WITH a DAW, like Doc and i do, and gets the best of both worlds.

its a recorder.
it sounds nice and works.
its not going to change anyone’s life all that much either way.

good day.
This is also my way ..... IZ ADA 1 NYQUIST with Logic ..... make me happy

and I still get an Otari RADAR 2 ( in case of )

If I could I would buy a RADAR 6 in a heartbeat .....

I just love the sound of this beast , it makes everything better , my Lexicon 480l V4 never sounded better same to the mics ( Neumann M 269 )

Converters are the core of the sound , it's the real thing to get great audio , much more than pramps or compressors IMHO

peace
Old 23rd September 2013
  #387
Lives for gear
 

I'd have to argue that my expectations were that the same audio playing back from the computer's HD vs. the Radar's HD should sound the same. Actually, it's more advantageous to hear it as sounding the same because it's more convenient not to have to transfer back to the Radar's HD, as space is limited.

So, I don't want to hear that the Radar's playback sounds better. I wish they sounded the same. But they don't.
Go ahead and keep saying that we're not hearing what we're hearing. Fine. I'm sure if you dig deep enough you'll find a technical explanation for it, since you can't believe it could possibly be true otherwise.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #388
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
please explain to me why it is physically impossible in scientific terms?
Ok, I'll bite. If he has the same files on a Radar and on the DAW they are exactly that, the same. You copy a digital file it's a clone. Play it back through the Radar, the Radar doesn't care if it's coming off it's own hard drive or "passed through" it's a clone, DA convertor see's exactly the same thing, it just converts the signal, it's exactly the same = sound's exactly the same.

Now to make that sound different, you've got to change or corrupt the original digital signal coming from the DAW. Any DAW is capable of delivering a perfect digital signal, unless you are doing something stupid to change it. I think Lynn Fuston did a load of null tests a few years ago that proved the "Ghost in the machine" concept was pure urban legend.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #389
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Ok, I'll bite. If he has the same files on a Radar and on the DAW they are exactly that, the same. You copy a digital file it's a clone. Play it back through the Radar, the Radar doesn't care if it's coming off it's own hard drive or "passed through" it's a clone, DA convertor see's exactly the same thing, it just converts the signal, it's exactly the same = sound's exactly the same.

Now to make that sound different, you've got to change or corrupt the original digital signal coming from the DAW. Any DAW is capable of delivering a perfect digital signal, unless you are doing something stupid to change it. I think Lynn Fuston did a load of null tests a few years ago that proved the "Ghost in the machine" concept was pure urban legend.
I'm not sure what the original post was, but wasn't the chain slightly different?
Old 23rd September 2013
  #390
Gear Addict
 

Interesting thread.
I never thought a discussion about Radar would get people so riled up.

I'm a big Pro Tools guy.
Been using it since the mid to late 90's.

I had the opportunity to use a Radar machine in Tennessee for about a year.
Radar and console.
I remember, after about a month of constant sessions,
I found myself noticing how fast I was able to fly around and do stuff...
Record a pass.
do 20 punches on the fly.
Arm.
Disarm.
Never an issue.

To this day, I cannot imagine flying around like that in PT.

99.9% of people now will never and have never worked in a high production environment, so there is no way to really explain the ease of use of Radar as compared to a daw.

If I were ever in that world again, I would go Radar.
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