The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is it about RADAR?
Old 23rd September 2013
  #391
Lives for gear
 

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.
Answering gravyface's question, as I understand it, skybluerental, Doc Mixwell, and myself are all talking about the above scenario. The same audio played back through Radar converters in both instances (for myself it's a Radar II, an older unit) but from different hard drives. As far as differences go, yes there's differences in the models of Radar and the DAW's used, but the similarity is we're all hearing differences between X DAW playback and Radar playback, always through the Radars converters.

To make things more weird, I'll mention again that audio copied to the computer and returned back to the radar (all digitally) sounded the same to me as that same audio that never left the Radar, which shouldn't make sense because I had to play back the DAW to get it back onto the Radar HD.

I can't hear the difference in that scenario, but I can sure hear the difference when something is playing back from the computer/Daw vs. playing back right off the Radar. In my instance the DAW is not Pro Tools, but DP. I also think Reaper sounds better than DP, but that's another story and I could very well be making that up in my head as I haven't done real direct comparisons.

However, it is relatively easy to directly test (by ear) the sound of the DAW playback vs. playback off the radar.

Just put the Radar in sync mode with the same tracks that you want to compare routed to the same channels where they reside on the Radar. Start the playback of both machines at the same time, and now by arming the tracks you can hear the DAW playback and disarming the same tracks, you will hear the Radar playback. Very easy and quick way to a/b.
Old 23rd September 2013
  #392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookerv12 View Post
Interesting thread.

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.


Jonathan
Old 23rd September 2013
  #393
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonk View Post
Answering gravyface's question, as I understand it, skybluerental, Doc Mixwell, and myself are all talking about the above scenario. The same audio played back through Radar converters in both instances (for myself it's a Radar II, an older unit) but from different hard drives. As far as differences go, yes there's differences in the models of Radar and the DAW's used, but the similarity is we're all hearing differences between X DAW playback and Radar playback, always through the Radars converters.

To make things more weird, I'll mention again that audio copied to the computer and returned back to the radar (all digitally) sounded the same to me as that same audio that never left the Radar, which shouldn't make sense because I had to play back the DAW to get it back onto the Radar HD.

I can't hear the difference in that scenario, but I can sure hear the difference when something is playing back from the computer/Daw vs. playing back right off the Radar. In my instance the DAW is not Pro Tools, but DP. I also think Reaper sounds better than DP, but that's another story and I could very well be making that up in my head as I haven't done real direct comparisons.

However, it is relatively easy to directly test (by ear) the sound of the DAW playback vs. playback off the radar.

Just put the Radar in sync mode with the same tracks that you want to compare routed to the same channels where they reside on the Radar. Start the playback of both machines at the same time, and now by arming the tracks you can hear the DAW playback and disarming the same tracks, you will hear the Radar playback. Very easy and quick way to a/b.
I'm kind of confused at how this is possible, but don't let that surprise you!
Old 24th September 2013
  #394
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface View Post
I'm kind of confused at how this is possible, but don't let that surprise you!


Simple. It's voodoo!
Or... Radar's playback chain is distorting the audio in some audible manner.

If you hear it coming off Radar, and record that signal to PT, you will be able to hear it in the PT playback because PT will capture and reproduce whatever is causing the Radar-induced anomaly.
Old 24th September 2013
  #395
Lives for gear
 
DigitMus's Avatar
 

My Radar 6 arrived today. I popped in the Nyquist and AES cards from my Radar V, and the studio was back up & running in an hour. As an old analog head, I was never completely comfortable "in the box". Using Radar with my Neotek is damned close to the old multitrack R2R days, except it'a a hell of a lot easier & faster to edit on a Radar.

I never argue that one way is superior to another in general, only as it applies to specific situations. I have friends who make killer records on a daw, but are lost in my control room. My situation is the opposite.

Scott
Old 24th September 2013
  #396
Here for the gear
 

To be frank I hate laptops and DAWs, and will consider a RADAR if I decide to go the digital route in the future.
Old 24th September 2013
  #397
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post


Simple. It's voodoo!
Or... Radar's playback chain is distorting the audio in some audible manner.

If you hear it coming off Radar, and record that signal to PT, you will be able to hear it in the PT playback because PT will capture and reproduce whatever is causing the Radar-induced anomaly.
you are clearly confused.

first of all, there is no anomaly being induced by the RADAR. if you were to take the raw files off the RADAR and the same raw files from Pro Tools and compare them, they would be exactly the same. playing back from the RADAR digitally into Pro Tools or vice versa does not change the WAV files at all in my experience.

BUT, when you play back multiple tracks of audio from the RADAR hard drive onto a console, using RADAR’s BEOS software, it is different than playing back from Pro Tools DAW software through the same converters onto the same channels on the console.

again, i do not know what causes the differences.
my speculation is that it is the way the software in the different programs handles the audio files OR that somehow the audio card in between the computer and the RADAR is degrading the sound slightly.
remember, you cannot get from Pro Tools to RADAR without an audio card of some sort and it is possible that the audio card/cables cause anomalies in the playback from Pro Tools that dont happen coming straight off the RADAR.

do you understand what i am saying?

Barry was on here earlier trying to explain the differences in a scientific manner but, as usual, the mindless trolls with low social intelligence scared away the pragmatic professional that most of us want to hear from in the first place.

shame.
Old 24th September 2013
  #398
Gear Addict
 
gpiccolini's Avatar
It's kind of funny that people still claims "It's digital, so it sounds the same" or "if you are hearing it sounding better you're fooling yourself". Recently, from a thread like this one, probably this one, I was directed to an old (7 years or so) video where the "teacher" "proved" with test equipment that an Emagic EMI 2/6 was reproducing PERFECT sine waves AND concludes that there is any difference with an analog signal. To be short: if all digital audio since the low cost 16bit 48KHz EMI 2/6 reproduces perfect audio (after recording it... it was an I/O test!), why does this forum exists at all at least all of its digital talk?.
Old 24th September 2013
  #399
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
you are clearly confused.

first of all, there is no anomaly being induced by the RADAR. if you were to take the raw files off the RADAR and the same raw files from Pro Tools and compare them, they would be exactly the same. playing back from the RADAR digitally into Pro Tools or vice versa does not change the WAV files at all in my experience.

BUT, when you play back multiple tracks of audio from the RADAR hard drive onto a console, using RADAR’s BEOS software, it is different than playing back from Pro Tools DAW software through the same converters onto the same channels on the console.
Confusion is always a possibility on my part, but it appears from your explanation here, that Radar's BeOS software has to be the culprit.

1. Raw files from Radar and PT are EXACTLY the same.
2. Transferring files directly from R to PT or PT to R DOES NOT CHANGE the files at all. Still exactly the same.
3. Playing back files using BeOS sounds different than playing back those EXACT SAME files through the SAME CONVERTERS into the SAME CONSOLE channels from PT without BeOS employed in the process.

One issue here is that BeOS is only an OS. Radar even considered switching to QNX in 2002, so iZ Pres, Barry Henderson does not see BeOS as integral to the sound quality, although I suppose it's a possibility.

"We chose BeOS because it was much less expensive to incorporate. We are very happy with BeOS but if we ever want to develop any features that are operating system dependant that BeOS will not support we are ready to go to QNX. When we did the BeOS port, we did it in a way that was very modular so that going to another operating system such as QNX would be easy. We estimate it will only take a few months to go to QNX once we make the decision. So far we have not made that decision." Barry Henderson, 2002. from BeOS and RADAR 24 - Topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
remember, you cannot get from Pro Tools to RADAR without an audio card of some sort and it is possible that the audio card/cables cause anomalies in the playback from Pro Tools that don't happen coming straight off the RADAR.
Employing logic, the fact that the audio files are exactly the same on Radar and PT (post transfer?), this nulls the possibility that audio card or cables is causing anomalies. If changes in the files were being generated in the transfer process, those would be detectable, no? I glean from your explanation that it's not the converters, as same converters are used for both playbacks.

It's possible that I'm not understanding your full explanation, or that I'm just missing something of importance in your testing sequence/process. But from the info above, directly from your post, BeOS is the culprit. Problems are that this is all too clear and easy to deduce, and I trust that you would come to this conclusion as easily as I. So, there has to be something I'm missing here, right? And it's an OS. Can an OS change the way digital audio sounds? Maybe. Dunno.

OK, now I AM confused
Old 25th September 2013
  #400
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
Confusion is always a possibility on my part, but it appears from your explanation here, that Radar's BeOS software has to be the culprit.

1. Raw files from Radar and PT are EXACTLY the same.
2. Transferring files directly from R to PT or PT to R DOES NOT CHANGE the files at all. Still exactly the same.
3. Playing back files using BeOS sounds different than playing back those EXACT SAME files through the SAME CONVERTERS into the SAME CONSOLE channels from PT without BeOS employed in the process.

One issue here is that BeOS is only an OS. Radar even considered switching to QNX in 2002, so iZ Pres, Barry Henderson does not see BeOS as integral to the sound quality, although I suppose it's a possibility.

"We chose BeOS because it was much less expensive to incorporate. We are very happy with BeOS but if we ever want to develop any features that are operating system dependant that BeOS will not support we are ready to go to QNX. When we did the BeOS port, we did it in a way that was very modular so that going to another operating system such as QNX would be easy. We estimate it will only take a few months to go to QNX once we make the decision. So far we have not made that decision." Barry Henderson, 2002. from BeOS and RADAR 24 - Topic



Employing logic, the fact that the audio files are exactly the same on Radar and PT (post transfer?), this nulls the possibility that audio card or cables is causing anomalies. If changes in the files were being generated in the transfer process, those would be detectable, no? I glean from your explanation that it's not the converters, as same converters are used for both playbacks.

It's possible that I'm not understanding your full explanation, or that I'm just missing something of importance in your testing sequence/process. But from the info above, directly from your post, BeOS is the culprit. Problems are that this is all too clear and easy to deduce, and I trust that you would come to this conclusion as easily as I. So, there has to be something I'm missing here, right? And it's an OS. Can an OS change the way digital audio sounds? Maybe. Dunno.

OK, now I AM confused
yes, you are very confused.

the straight RADAR playback sounds better than Pro Tools playback through RADAR to me and to everyone else i know who has actually taken time to listen to it.

if anything is the culprit of degradation, it is Pro Tools, not the RADAR.

the answer to your question “can an OS change the way digital audio sounds” is close to the heart of the matter i believe.
i would say it is more how the DAW software handles the WAV files vs how the RADAR software handles the WAV files that is accounting for the differences in sound., but again, i am no expert here.
i know what i heard and there are palpable differences.

Barry was on here trying to explain it, but people were being a bit rude and he probably had enough of it.

shame.
Old 25th September 2013
  #401
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookerv12 View Post
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.
This rings true to me. I am totally ITB and I need the audio/MIDI integration that only DAW's offer. But I can't imagine doing all of that ^^^ as seamlessly as a dedicated unit does. Not that a DAW can't do that, but I do remember how much more hands-on and faster that stuff was on my old DR-1200.
Old 25th September 2013
  #402
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
yes, you are very confused.
Yes, I certainly must be about your procedure for transfer, playback and comparison. The net can be a very poor communication channel, I guess.

I'll respectfully bow out of this one.
Old 25th September 2013
  #403
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface View Post
I'm not sure what the original post was, but wasn't the chain slightly different?
No, that's why it can't be so.
Old 25th September 2013
  #404
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface View Post
I'm kind of confused at how this is possible, but don't let that surprise you!
This is not possible, unless there is something very wrong, quite possibly with the Radar, which I don't believe for a moment. This is the thrust of my argument.

Last edited by Roland; 25th September 2013 at 07:56 PM.. Reason: Clarity
Old 25th September 2013
  #405
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
you are clearly confused.

first of all, there is no anomaly being induced by the RADAR. if you were to take the raw files off the RADAR and the same raw files from Pro Tools and compare them, they would be exactly the same. playing back from the RADAR digitally into Pro Tools or vice versa does not change the WAV files at all in my experience.

BUT, when you play back multiple tracks of audio from the RADAR hard drive onto a console, using RADAR’s BEOS software, it is different than playing back from Pro Tools DAW software through the same converters onto the same channels on the console.

again, i do not know what causes the differences.
my speculation is that it is the way the software in the different programs handles the audio files OR that somehow the audio card in between the computer and the RADAR is degrading the sound slightly.
remember, you cannot get from Pro Tools to RADAR without an audio card of some sort and it is possible that the audio card/cables cause anomalies in the playback from Pro Tools that dont happen coming straight off the RADAR.

do you understand what i am saying?

Barry was on here earlier trying to explain the differences in a scientific manner but, as usual, the mindless trolls with low social intelligence scared away the pragmatic professional that most of us want to hear from in the first place.

shame.
I would expect Barry to confirm exactly what I've told you. After all this is one of the benefits of Radar that it can be used as a convert and directly transfer files from the unit both directions for more detailed work/editing than can be done directly on Radar itself.

I would also state, that any of the current crop of DAW's would pass audio, bit for bit accurately. As I mentioned earlier, a few years back null tests were done that proved this.

The software or the "soundcard", in this scenario is only passing data, it's not effecting audio, you need to think about all these systems as just giant calculators, that's all they do. We can all argue about the sound of one persons AD/DA design against anothers, but that isn't the situation here.

Last edited by Roland; 25th September 2013 at 07:54 PM.. Reason: Additional information
Old 25th September 2013
  #406
the one part of our signal chain that will never need replacing! got to give it to Otari and IZ , they got it right all them years ago.
Old 10th October 2013
  #407
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

what a great 7 year old thread! So much name calling and controversy, and most of all passion, over what is and has been a great product in my estimation (in case you dont know where I stand )

I look at this quite simply,

PC's and MAC books werent primarily designed to be hardware host for music making. Neither were their software operating systems. THey could be a major PIA to use, even up to recently. Despite this, (and because of the power of computing) a whole industry sprung up around the concept of providing "digital audio workstations" and they are today wonderfully capable devices supporting all sorts of creativity.

From all reports, way back, IZ RADAR built a digital recording platform optimized to be the most stable and reliable you could get, perhaps better that what 2" 24 track had achieved. (reliability and cost to operate)

That was a laudable decision, but perhaps one with a limited marketplace shelf life though.

It's quite obvious that the DAW product lines provided for the elimination of the expense and size of all/most analog outboard gear, including consoles. The concept wasmthat the power of DAW allowed all decisions to be made when desired, and an un ending level of flexibility in shaping sound and recordings "In The Box". You cant argue against the merit of that. Pro recordists have always sought unending abilities to make great sounds and great sounding records.

However, I believe that Barry, and his team at IZ, provided recordists (both pro and hobbyist, like me) a recording system, that when combined with hard earned and acquired quality analog consoles, pre amps, mics and other outboard gear, could produce incredible and very musical recordings at a level no less than the highest ever attained, whether digital or analog based.

The critical piece is that you didnt have to totally relearn the way, and the process of making great recordings

It is my opinion, and only one based on a rough understanding of Barry's approach to his designs, that the RADAR system, and it's converters, benefit from designs that are sympathetic to interfacing with analog consoles and other sweet analog music making devices.

In addition, the Session Controller is a marvel of industrial/human factors design, allowing engineers, producers and musicians to QUICKLY and efficiently get great sounding music "recorded", and ultimately mixed. It doesn't friggen matter if its it's ITB or OTB. What matters is the ease , comfort and the support, of the creative process!!!!!!!!!!

For all these reasons, I love my RADAR
Old 11th October 2013
  #408
Yes, that nails it, Ephi. It's about workflow and what makes you comfortable as a working artist and/or engineer. There are many different mental perspectives on capturing and reproducing audio, and they all make the world go round.

Just because I'm comfortable with a computer, mouse and screen does not mean that everyone is. Workflow is defined by the tools one uses, and if one is not comfortable with the tools, the workflow will be interrupted and final product will always suffer.

Some, me included, have questioned the validity of sound improvement claims with Radar, but individual perception is really what counts at the end of the session. Not hard, cold facts. It's the amount of creative and tech effort one puts into the product that mostly dictates the level of quality in the final product, not gear, and you can only bring your top game when the workflow is comfortable.

Be familiar and comfortable with your process, and you will create the very best art within your capabilites. If Radar allows this for some, then that's the necessary key!
Old 11th October 2013
  #409
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
Yes, that nails it, Ephi. It's about workflow and what makes you comfortable as a working artist and/or engineer. There are many different mental perspectives on capturing and reproducing audio, and they all make the world go round.

Just because I'm comfortable with a computer, mouse and screen does not mean that everyone is. Workflow is defined by the tools one uses, and if one is not comfortable with the tools, the workflow will be interrupted and final product will always suffer.

Some, me included, have questioned the validity of sound improvement claims with Radar, but individual perception is really what counts at the end of the session. Not hard, cold facts. It's the amount of creative and tech effort one puts into the product that mostly dictates the level of quality in the final product, not gear, and you can only bring your top game when the workflow is comfortable.

Be familiar and comfortable with your process, and you will create the very best art within your capabilites. If Radar allows this for some, then that's the necessary key!
great post!
Old 11th October 2013
  #410
Gear Maniac
 
DavePiatek's Avatar
 

Yeah, the converters are great, but it's all about workflow. If you like the workflow of tape, it feels really natural and "non-digital".

I like the workflow of the DAW, so RADAR is a bit of a bummer for me. Still, if I had to choose between RADAR and tape, I'd choose RADAR.
Old 1st December 2013
  #411
I don't believe I've read in this thread about how sub mixes copy from "project to project"..?

I'm a big fan of the Radar 6.
I use it daily, and bounce between it to tape and back and in daw...or not into daw for final mix.
What I connect with about the Radar is based on sonics, headroom, workflow, compatibility with other systems, portability...I've flown around the world with them to record, easy punch in/outs, the basic editing facilities.
(If the editing menu in Radar isn't powerful enough for me it raises a huge question, "why am I editing a less than stellar recorded moment in time"?
I'm fine with tracking with an artist until the performance clicks.
Back to "copying projects, creating sub mixes".
I do not sync multiple units, therefore I'm chipping away at a 24 track session at any given moment.
However, when I need more tracks/voices I'll mix/sub mix as I go.
Mind u, this all console based.
I can easily wind up with 3 copies of a song (Project, in radar language) and split duties amongst them.
-project 1 drums, bass, rhythm guitars, scratch vocal
-project 2 all vocals, vocal harmonies
-project 3 all melodic instruments

Upon completing tasks in getting all the rhythm tracks down I start using every inch of outboard gear in creating a sub mix/stems of my session to date.
All sub mixes being arrived at by actually jocking a console as well.
So in a moment in time, I'm making sonic decisions that help guide the rest of the tracking on the song, and painting an early outline of how the master will eventually sound.

In a lot of cases, this sub mixes(which are hopelessly un-recallable, ha) do wind up being in the DAW final mixes of the masters.
On random occasion...
I've taken Radar 6 to record a client's gig a Festival Date that they wanted to document.
It handled 100 plus degree weather amazingly....never missed a beat.

As far as it's editing facilities.....
The machine and I have this in common, we demand performance.
If the kick drum can't stay in time for longer than 5 seconds...it isn't the tracking devise.
On a weirder note, neither is that drummer.
Hope this helps.

No info on science, super digital dinosaur comments, trying to help

I will chime in on the importance of stylish socks
Old 4th June 2014
  #412
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
I have to keep this thread going. I have a Radar I bought used in 2004 and it has always worked for me.. Recently, I was having a minor issue with networking it. No big deal, I just imported or exported to and from dvd.

A client I worked with had some files done on the new Radar 6 at another studio and he handed me a dvd but I couldnt get it to import.. I sent iz a support email..

So I call IZcorp today to talk to them about a possible upgrade for my unit.. He gave me a quote and told me,...wait I have an email from you regarding a support issue you were having..

I said yea, can you help me..? I called him back later today and he spent close to an hour on the phone troubleshooting the network issue I originally had.. Once that was fixed, I was able to import the files from the client using Radar's networking..

Thank you Joel..!
2 problems solved.. On a 14 year old Radar system, toll free... !!

Barry and IZ will get my money again.. case closed.
Old 4th June 2014
  #413
Lives for gear
 
adam_f's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyman View Post
I have to keep this thread going. I have a Radar I bought used in 2004 and it has always worked for me.. Recently, I was having a minor issue with networking it. No big deal, I just imported or exported to and from dvd.

A client I worked with had some files done on the new Radar 6 at another studio and he handed me a dvd but I couldnt get it to import.. I sent iz a support email..

So I call IZcorp today to talk to them about a possible upgrade for my unit.. He gave me a quote and told me,...wait I have an email from you regarding a support issue you were having..

I said yea, can you help me..? I called him back later today and he spent close to an hour on the phone troubleshooting the network issue I originally had.. Once that was fixed, I was able to import the files from the client using Radar's networking..

Thank you Joel..!
2 problems solved.. On a 14 year old Radar system, toll free... !!

Barry and IZ will get my money again.. case closed.
I had a similar thing a week ago. Joel was awesome, we went through my network settings, and with a line enter into the terminal window on my MAC all was set on my network. Joel RoCks!

IZ will get more money from me too! Need to upgrade....
Old 4th June 2014
  #414
hell yeah I have had nothing but epic support from IZ since I got my radar. If not from Joel then from Barry, I was having small issues and he gave me his personal phone number and helped me solve them on a weekend...always answered and helped until problem was solved.
Old 10th June 2014
  #415
kHz
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remy Leloup View Post
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
I'm with Remy here, ADA Nyquist but with Pro Tools HD. Sounds stellar, works perfectly. 24 i/os.
What I've noticed is that it works better sound wise using MADI versus ADAT lightpipe. Lightpipe sounds also good but sort of blurred. Everything clocked with Trinity an 10M. I've also noticed that with other ADAT connexions. I use old 192's from Digidesign for ADAT or AES. Maybe these are the culprits but I did not notice that using AES.

I don't have a RADAR right now to do the tests Barry recommended but will do asap.

You might not be aware that there is a special offer till the 12th of July on both ADA II and RADAR 6.

Flame me if you like as I'm an iZ dealer but I wanted to share my experience.

In my opinion, RADAR is a great and certainly the best stand alone recorder available at any price and either RADAR or ADA or both make a great combo with a good DAW regarding sound quality and, considering the number of I/O's also price wise.

Yours

JC
Old 10th June 2014
  #416
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 78 archivist View Post
To be frank I hate laptops and DAWs, and will consider a RADAR if I decide to go the digital route in the future.
Same here! There truly is just "something" about that sound!
Old 11th June 2014
  #417
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

I have weighed in before, but you simple cant appreciate how easy it is to lay down some drum and bass tracks through a nice analog board, into a RADAR, and then play it back.

The fat sound of the bass and drums upon playback puts a huge smile on your face, likely only as easily obtained back in the 2" days..

Its not for everyone, and probably less people every year, but it is the best thing ever for a select few.

All new recordists should hear what a product like this can sound like......
Old 11th June 2014
  #418
Lives for gear
 
ARIEL's Avatar
Here is a great review of the Radar ADA vs lynx aurora . http://www.izcorp.com/iz/wp-content/...13-ADA-II2.pdf
Old 12th June 2014
  #419
Radar and good console...nice drums in a good sounding room...pure heaven...and fun to boot


ps...dont forget good player!
Old 12th June 2014
  #420
Lives for gear
 
nobtwiddler's Avatar
Nothing better sounding or easier to use!

Simply put,
Radar ALWAYS works!
Turn it on, arm a channel(s) and go…
Nothing about it gets in the way of recording.

As a engineer it allows you the freedom to concentrate on the sounds, which by the way will always come back as expected, with no sonic differences.

As a producer, it doesn't stand in the way of capturing the perfect take.

It's real a no brainer. USE IT ONCE AND YOU"RE SOLD.

Best sounding easiest to use recorder on the planet!

By the way, Barry and his staff are the best!!!!!
They will get on the phone with you NO MATTER WHAT!
Even if you are a meathead, and the problem has nothing to do with their equipment…. No matter, they will talk you thru it..
I mean totally amazing!

(By the way...I bought 6 since they came out~!)
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