The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is it about RADAR?
Old 14th March 2007
  #121
Lives for gear
 
Fleaman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lm66 View Post
Well, you're not talking about music but commercial pressure...

Hopefully there are still musical prods which don't need any autotune. Do you know Jazz ?

Do you think the 70's prods (King Crimson, Led Zeppelin, etc.) needed autotune or any kind of beat hunter ?

Try to Beatdedective Jack de Johnette drum's parts during a mix session and he'll burn you on place.

All kind of music do not depend upon stupid commercial habits.

I guess the word music does'nt mean the same thing for you and me.
Did you even read my post?

It's not my choice and I can't stand it myself.

If Led Zeppelin formed today, they would have broken up in the studio. The producer would have either tried to replace Bonham's tracks with a session drummer or they would have Beat detective him to death, either way, Bonham would have quite and Led Zeppelin would never have been.

This 'environment' is part of the reason commercial pop and rock music and the artist it promotes, sounds the way it does today.

I mentioned this was a "sad fact" in my post.

Do you know the difference between a top Jazz budget and a top pop or rock budget?

Again, this is the High end and in the High End studio biz you will not survive as a pop/rock engineer/producer/studio if you turn away the mass majority of pop/rock work that comes to your door because of 'commercial pressure'.

Unless you have large trust fund, or just money to burn, you will find that in this high end world, commercial pressure will win. It comes down to a job...you either do it or don't.

Of course there are other musical areas (or people) that are not heavy with slice and dicing and some have carved out a little niche for themselves (Steve Albini, etc.), but this is the minority and they are not doing big budget commercial releases.

Top budgets, if you're part of them, will require (not all, but just about all) the 'sad fact' I mentioned.

BTW, even Abe Laboriel Jr. has been beat detective’d and he is known as one of the tightest session guys around.

Again, it's a sad state of affairs.....But I didn't create it, PT did.
Old 14th March 2007
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Fleaman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I don't agree. It's not the labels in the control room asking the engineer or the producer to autotune the vocal.
Uhm, it is.

Labels want perfection and they make the producer deliver it.

If you don't, and they find out (say they decide to remix a song later with another producer), you'll never get a job with them again.
Old 14th March 2007
  #123
Gear Maniac
 
Stormkloud's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=thermos;1176147]I didn't read the whole thread, but.....
The converters are awesome, yes. But, when the same tracks are played back with the Radar machine it also sounds way better than the same tracks played back in a daw.
Someone explained to me once why this was (he sat next to one of the IZ guys on the plane), and it really made sense then. But I can't remember exactly. Something about the clock being isolated from the ground (I know nothing about electronics). Anyway, it was a way of making the machine operate that no one else in the whole industry employs.


you know , I may be crazy but I have also noticed this. It may be my imagination playing tricks on me but It seems that if I track using my Radar converters directly into my DAW and then play them back thru the digital inputs on Radar into my console they just dont seem to have the same detail than if I track to the Radar hardrive and play them back from Radar. Even tho Im using the same A/D and then D/A from Radar , something seems to be missing. It would seem to me there shouldnt be any difference at all in the sound. I always thought it was just me and my imagination until you brought this up , now Im not sure.
Old 14th March 2007
  #124
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleaman View Post
Unless you have large trust fund, or just money to burn, you will find that in this high end world, commercial pressure will win. It comes down to a job...you either do it or don't.

Of course there are other musical areas (or people) that are not heavy with slice and dicing and some have carved out a little niche for themselves (Steve Albini, etc.), but this is the minority and they are not doing big budget commercial releases.

Top budgets, if you're part of them, will require (not all, but just about all) the 'sad fact' I mentioned.

BTW, even Abe Laboriel Jr. has been beat detective’d and he is known as one of the tightest session guys around.

Again, it's a sad state of affairs.....But I didn't create it, PT did.
The attitude that money matters more than art is what is creating it, not PT.

You're helping creating it by this very post.

Everybody can decide for themselves whether they want to be an artist or a salesman. And yes, you either do the job or you don't. "Don't" is just as viable an option.

If it's just a job to you, just an income, then there's no point in whining about PT. It's making it possible for people with little musical talent to meet the rubric for financial success. If the point is to make money, then you should thank PT for making it possible.

Every choice you make has an opportunity cost.

-R
Old 14th March 2007
  #125
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=Stormkloud;1178920]
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
It may be my imagination playing tricks on me but It seems that if I track using my Radar converters directly into my DAW and then play them back thru the digital inputs on Radar into my console they just dont seem to have the same detail than if I track to the Radar hardrive and play them back from Radar. Even tho Im using the same A/D and then D/A from Radar , something seems to be missing. It would seem to me there shouldnt be any difference at all in the sound. I always thought it was just me and my imagination until you brought this up , now Im not sure.
If the only variable is the storage medium (PT instead of Radar) and you're using the same converters with the same clocking then I'd say it's your imagination playing tricks on you. If you have both options why not record a couple of files for comparison.

It wold be easy to demonstrate a difference is there really is one.

-R
Old 14th March 2007
  #126
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
The tracks played back from the Radar would have to be going through a console, right? The tracks playing back in the DAW presumably are not going through a console, otherwise they wouldn't be playing back "in the DAW".

Now what do you think might account for the difference?

-R
No. They both play back through the console and the radar converters. Except one is played back from the radar's internal hd and the same session is played back from the daw, through the radar's converters. Both recorded with radar, and played back through radar converters.
Old 14th March 2007
  #127
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
I don't have both, but my father does. We spent a few hours doing this test together, and blind tested a/bed. There definitely was a difference.
Fwiw, radar advertises this as well.
Old 14th March 2007
  #128
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
I don't have both, but my father does. We spent a few hours doing this test together, and blind tested a/bed. There definitely was a difference.
Fwiw, radar advertises this as well.
Too bad you didn't burn a file and share it, or listen a little later. there's plenty of mythology around this, but oddly, for something so easy to demonstrate objectively, there is no proof. If Radar advertises this, I hope they at least post a couple of files so we can hear for ourselves.

Maybe there's a clocking issue in there somewhere. I can't imagine why two different hard drives would sound different, and there's never been any evidence that Protools doesn't pass digital audio transparently.

Does Radar record standard format files, or are they proprietary? Is there a file conversion process that could be degrading the audio?

I just wish that people who make these assertions would pony up some proof.

-R
Old 14th March 2007
  #129
Gear Maniac
 
Stormkloud's Avatar
 

To be honest I always thought it was just my imagination. It makes no sense that it would sound any different even tho , I have noticed this on several occasions.
I dont think I have ever seen IZ actually say this.
Ill chalk it up to too much time in the studio and not enough fresh air
Old 14th March 2007
  #130
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormkloud View Post
To be honest I always thought it was just my imagination. It makes no sense that it would sound any different
I swear the red brushed aluminum knobs on my Nicerizer16 makes everything sound better.

-R
Old 14th March 2007
  #131
Gear Nut
 
N.J.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Too bad you didn't burn a file and share it, or listen a little later. there's plenty of mythology around this, but oddly, for something so easy to demonstrate objectively, there is no proof. If Radar advertises this, I hope they at least post a couple of files so we can hear for ourselves.

Maybe there's a clocking issue in there somewhere. I can't imagine why two different hard drives would sound different, and there's never been any evidence that Protools doesn't pass digital audio transparently.

Does Radar record standard format files, or are they proprietary? Is there a file conversion process that could be degrading the audio?

I just wish that people who make these assertions would pony up some proof.

-R
RADAR is just standard BWAV files. Nothing proprietary about the file format. It's not clocking.

It's all about the DAE engine.

I've asked Barry to jump in and explain.
Stay tuned...
Old 14th March 2007
  #132
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.J. View Post
RADAR is just standard BWAV files. Nothing proprietary about the file format. It's not clocking.

It's all about the DAE engine.

I've asked Barry to jump in and explain.
Stay tuned...
I look forward to the explanation.

thanks,
R
Old 15th March 2007
  #133
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
The tracks played back from the Radar would have to be going through a console, right? The tracks playing back in the DAW presumably are not going through a console, otherwise they wouldn't be playing back "in the DAW".

Now what do you think might account for the difference?

-R
Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson View Post
I believe for many of the A/B comparisons that have been done, DAW tracks as well as RADAR tracks have been run through the same console. Any other comparison would seem invalid from my perspective.

Action
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
I haven't heard any myself. Have you?

I don't sense that all these opinions that get bandied about are based on any controlled comparisons. I think people using Radar are also using a console, and that adds to the overall positive experience.

-R

Search over at Pro Sound Web for the Chicago test. A 3 way comparison between a Studer (820 I think), RADAR, and PT all going through the same console. (warning really aweful music)
Old 15th March 2007
  #134
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
I look forward to the explanation.

thanks,
R
Tell me if this makes sense - I see two possible ways the sound can be changed:

1) Mix Buss processing: When you play files from a DAW, the 24 bit data bytes from the files on the disk are buffered into the mix buss (usually at least 56 bits) and then funneled back to 24 bits and played out digitally to the converters, either through a proprietary interface (such as PT) or an industry standard interface such as AES, MADI, TDIF, or ADAT. Even with all the faders set to zero and no plugs running, I don't believe there is any way to fix the data at a 24 bit word length the whole way through from the disk to the converters. In RADAR, 24 bit word length is maintained from disk to D/A so there is no possibility of dithering or truncation.

2) Clock jitter: If the clock source is the DAW, clock jitter rippling through RADAR from the DAW can distort the analog signal coming out of RADAR's D/A converters.
Old 15th March 2007
  #135
Gear Nut
 

A way to tell...

One more thing...

A way to tell if it is mix buss processing is to create a DC file on the DAW at o dB with a length of about a minute. A DC file has all of the data is the same, for example:

000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 1)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 2)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 3)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 4)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 5)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 6)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 7)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 8)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 9)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 10)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 11)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 12)
000001111111111111111111 (24 bit DATA byte 13)
000001111111111111111111 etc....

Play this file off the DAW disk through digital outs such as AES and record it into RADAR. Compare the created file from the DAW, with the recorded file on RADAR and they should be identical. Making it a DC file makes it easy to visually spot differences.
Old 15th March 2007
  #136
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.J. View Post
RADAR is just standard BWAV files. Nothing proprietary about the file format.
IF the drive has been formatted for native Braodcast WAV recording, correct? If the drive is formatted to the pre v3.35 format, aren't the a files proprietary format?

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
Old 15th March 2007
  #137
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgarges View Post
IF the drive has been formatted for native Braodcast WAV recording, correct? If the drive is formatted to the pre v3.35 format, aren't the a files proprietary format?

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
No because the original proprietary RADAR format was only different in the file header and the cluster size, the actual data would be the same and so the file compare would look identical.
Old 15th March 2007
  #138
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Tell me if this makes sense - I see two possible ways the sound can be changed:

1) Mix Buss processing: When you play files from a DAW, the 24 bit data bytes from the files on the disk are buffered into the mix buss (usually at least 56 bits) and then funneled back to 24 bits and played out digitally to the converters, either through a proprietary interface (such as PT) or an industry standard interface such as AES, MADI, TDIF, or ADAT. Even with all the faders set to zero and no plugs running, I don't believe there is any way to fix the data at a 24 bit word length the whole way through from the disk to the converters. In RADAR, 24 bit word length is maintained from disk to D/A so there is no possibility of dithering or truncation.

2) Clock jitter: If the clock source is the DAW, clock jitter rippling through RADAR from the DAW can distort the analog signal coming out of RADAR's D/A converters.
I honestly don't understand your first explanation. Could you elaborate on this and show how this could possibly affect how the resulting audio is perceived? Do you mean that files coming off the DAW digitally will no longer be 24 bit deep, or that the lowest bits will have changed? And to a degree that you can hear? I mean, 24 bit is a much greater dynamic range than the best audio tape, right? We're not talking about mixing inside the DAW--just sending the files out their own converter channels.

As for the jitter, it seems to me that it wouldn't make sense to use the DAW to clock the Radar converters.

Are you maintaining that there is in fact a sonic difference as the other guy maintains, or are you just offering possible explanations for a phenomenon which may in fact not exist ?

-R
Old 15th March 2007
  #139
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
I don't have both, but my father does. We spent a few hours doing this test together, and blind tested a/bed. There definitely was a difference.
Fwiw, radar advertises this as well.
Where does Radar advertise this?

-R
Old 15th March 2007
  #140
Gear Nut
 
N.J.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgarges View Post
IF the drive has been formatted for native Braodcast WAV recording, correct? If the drive is formatted to the pre v3.35 format, aren't the a files proprietary format?

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
There are two variables here.
Disk Format (ie HFS+,NTFS,FAT32) (The way the files are written) (see Cluster (file system) - ) and File Format (the way the file data is encoded) (WAV,SND, AIF).

Before 3.35 software, the default audio recording drive was 128k cluster Disk Format (ie called "AUDIO: !RADAR!), . The File Format written is a "wav" File Format. The Disk Format (128k cluster) however cannot be mounted on a Mac/PC, as those platforms don't support the 128k cluster Disk Format.

3.35 and above, there is an new option to format an audio recording drive for 96k cluster Disk Format (ie called "AUDIO: RADAR BWAV), . The File Format written is still "wav" File Format. The Disk Format (96k cluster) can be mounted on a Mac/PC (They mount the drive as a well organized FAT32 Disk Format)

The quick process of file flattening a "RADAR BWAV" drive, just prepares/consolidates the project's audio (files, files names and folders) in a user friendly format to be imported into DAW while mounted on your Mac/PC.

As an example, I can store the same .jpg picture File Format on a HFS+ or NTFS Disk Format, however viewing this picture file with a PC on a HFS+ Disk Format would not be possible, even though the picture is of the same File Format (.jpg).
Old 15th March 2007
  #141
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson;1179725[b
1) Mix Buss processing:[/b] When you play files from a DAW, the 24 bit data bytes from the files on the disk are buffered into the mix buss (usually at least 56 bits) and then funneled back to 24 bits and played out digitally to the converters
Barry,let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. When you are playing individual tracks off a DAW, each assigned to its own digital or converter output, you're saying that somehow all the tracks get dumped into the mix bus then separated out again before they go to their individual outputs? And when they come out they are not a bit-accurate rendition of what went in?

This is an interesting discussion, and completely on topic, and I hope you follow up.

Thanks,

-R
Old 15th March 2007
  #142
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Barry,let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. When you are playing individual tracks off a DAW, each assigned to its own digital or converter output, you're saying that somehow all the tracks get dumped into the mix bus then separated out again before they go to their individual outputs? And when they come out they are not a bit-accurate rendition of what went in?

This is an interesting discussion, and completely on topic, and I hope you follow up.

Thanks,

-R
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that in a DAW, files are read off the disk into either a hardware DSP chip (as they are in PT hardware) or into the Host processor CPU (in a native system like Sonar or Nuendo). My understanding is that the DSP or CPU processes the audio data before sending it to the serial digital outputs - any digital processing at all, would yield greater than 24 results which would require dithering or truncation to become 24 bits again in order to be sent out the serial digital outputs. If my understanding is correct, then if one records those digital signals on another recorder and compares the two files, they would be slightly different.

Whether this is true or not, somehow the data is being modified since users can hear a difference. Since God-made human hearing is substantially more precise than man-made test equipment, the difference in sound may not be able to be measured with electronic equipment. However, I think a good test to see if this is really happening is my DC file test that I posted earlier. If DAWs do not modify the audio data when simply playing audio files from the disk to the digital outputs, then the resulting recorded file should be bit for bit identical to the created file - and it will be easy to detect since the signal is DC (not varying) so visually, anyone will be able to see a bit change just by scrolling quickly through the file with a mouse.
Old 16th March 2007
  #143
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
One more thing...

A way to tell if it is mix buss processing is to create a DC file on the DAW at o dB with a length of about a minute. A DC file has all of the data is the same, for example:

Play this file off the DAW disk through digital outs such as AES and record it into RADAR. Compare the created file from the DAW, with the recorded file on RADAR and they should be identical. Making it a DC file makes it easy to visually spot differences.
In this scenario, if the 2 files end up being different wouldn't we assume that the Radar changed the file?

-R
Old 16th March 2007
  #144
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
IWhether this is true or not, somehow the data is being modified since users can hear a difference.
I'm not convinced that users really are hearing a difference. If there were an audible difference wouldn't this be easy to demonstrate? I don't have a Radar here so I can't check. How about somebody with access to both platforms gives this a spin and posts a couple of files. If I were the Radar marketing head I'd make that the centerpiece of my campaign.

No need to overstrain our brains to try to explain a phenomenon which may be illusory.

We've already been the rounds of dealing with mythology regarding whether fader moves affect audio quality. This is easily demonstrated (and has been demonstrated) not to be the case, in spite of the fact that moving a digital fader creates a larger word that then has to be reduced back to 24 bits. So I think that even if you are correct about how a DAW works, and at this point I think you're just speculating, then I'm still not convinced there would be an audible difference.

I agree, the ear can be more sensitive than any measurement instruments--so let's hear it.

-R
Old 16th March 2007
  #145
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
In this scenario, if the 2 files end up being different wouldn't we assume that the Radar changed the file?

-R
The RADAR can't change the file since its recording engine is dedicated hardware with no data processing, 24 bits all the way through the pipe from AES to the hard drive. Our design philosophy is, and has always been, "at all costs, stay away from the audio", even in the analog portions of the converter design, which is difficult because any analog component can modify the signal if it is not properly controlled and impedance matched with all the other components - including the copper traces themselves.

However, fortunately, staying in the digital domain, this can easily be proven with an Audio Precision or any pro digital console as follows: Set the AP (or console) to generate DC at 0 dB over AES - you can dial up a specific binary (Hex) value - then record it into RADAR, then look at the data in the file and you will see the exact same data value for every data byte in the file and it will match the data value that you dialed up on the AP (or console) generator.
Old 16th March 2007
  #146
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
I'm not convinced that users really are hearing a difference. If there were an audible difference wouldn't this be easy to demonstrate? I don't have a Radar here so I can't check. How about somebody with access to both platforms gives this a spin and posts a couple of files. If I were the Radar marketing head I'd make that the centerpiece of my campaign.

No need to overstrain our brains to try to explain a phenomenon which may be illusory.

We've already been the rounds of dealing with mythology regarding whether fader moves affect audio quality. This is easily demonstrated (and has been demonstrated) not to be the case, in spite of the fact that moving a digital fader creates a larger word that then has to be reduced back to 24 bits. So I think that even if you are correct about how a DAW works, and at this point I think you're just speculating, then I'm still not convinced there would be an audible difference.

I agree, the ear can be more sensitive than any measurement instruments--so let's hear it.

-R
Over the years I've had many people "claim" they can hear the difference. However, even if they posted files, it is still a subjective thing - forum posters would chime in ad infinitum with their opinions. Why not simply do the DC test - it's a black and white test - on or off - either the DAW is modifying the data or it's not - right?

If we do this simple test and it turns out the data is not being modified - then I think we can all agree that it is illusory. No?
Old 16th March 2007
  #147
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Over the years I've had many people "claim" they can hear the difference. However, even if they posted files, it is still a subjective thing - forum posters would chime in ad infinitum with their opinions. Why not simply do the DC test - it's a black and white test - on or off - either the DAW is modifying the data or it's not - right?

If we do this simple test and it turns out the data is not being modified - then I think we can all agree that it is illusory. No?
If I had a clue as to how do do what you're suggesting, I'd do it. How do you generate the DC? How do you view the results? As a composer/producer my technical engineering knowledge has some hefty limitations. Perhaps someone else who knows how to do this could try it out. How about you, Barry, is this something you've done?

And you're right, if the files are bit accurate then we can agree it's illusory. However, if they are not bit-accurate it still needs to be demonstrated that it's to a degree that somebody can hear the difference.

And what's wrong with forum posters chiming in with their opinions? Ultimately the human ear has to be the test, I think we all agree. And this being a forum, it's reasonable to expect some forum posters to chime in with opinions. For better or worse, it's kind of the point.

-R
Old 16th March 2007
  #148
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
T Our design philosophy is, and has always been, "at all costs, stay away from the audio", even in the analog portions of the converter design, which is difficult because any analog component can modify the signal if it is not properly controlled and impedance matched with all the other components - including the copper traces themselves.
My guess is that the analog component of converters is the thing that makes the real difference. If you take that out of the equation, I don't think anybody will be able to demonstrate that a DAW track played through Radar converters will sound any different than the same track played right off of Radar.

If I had both platforms here I'd take the ten minutes to play back a track in both fashions and post a comparison file. Surely anybody with a Radar also has a DAW sitting around for doing the occasional edit and could do this.

Post 4 files. Three of them done one way and one done the other. See if there's any statistical meaningful result after everyone weighs in. Nobody needs to even give an opinion. Just try to identify the odd man out.

-R
Old 16th March 2007
  #149
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Over the years I've had many people "claim" they can hear the difference. However, even if they posted files, it is still a subjective thing - forum posters would chime in ad infinitum with their opinions. Why not simply do the DC test - it's a black and white test - on or off - either the DAW is modifying the data or it's not - right?

If we do this simple test and it turns out the data is not being modified - then I think we can all agree that it is illusory. No?
With the greatest respect Barry there are plenty of people claiming they can hear a difference using an "esoteric" 1 metre power chord, but it is generally accepted this can't make a difference. As good as the ears are, they are relatively easily fooled. My own view for a long time was that the Radar sounded great due to really good convertors that actually delivered a genuine bottom end. I do feel that the playing field has become much more level these days. I personally site Pro-Tools as an example of this. The old Mix and previous systems sounded worse than my Dad's old underpants, however the new HD systems have great sound.

I used to own a Radar Mk1, which of it's time was wonderful. I now use a computer based Pyramix system, which, at this moment in time, IMHO will stand up performance wise to anything in the industry, including your IZ. Perhaps you could market your convertors, or integrate your system to provide the ease of use of your multitrack system as a plugin to other workstations?

Regards


Roland
Old 16th March 2007
  #150
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
If I had a clue as to how do do what you're suggesting, I'd do it. How do you generate the DC? How do you view the results? As a composer/producer my technical engineering knowledge has some hefty limitations. Perhaps someone else who knows how to do this could try it out. How about you, Barry, is this something you've done?
I don't own a DAW and we don't have one at iZ. In your DAW, can you somehow create a file of all digital zeros by either recording with the mute on, or better yet, create a region of pure silence? Here is a test that any completely non-technical recording engineer can do - try this:

1) Create a file of 30 seconds of silence, 48 kHz, 24 bits. If the DAW creates BWAV files, this will result in a BWAV audio file that has a header full of data followed by about 4.3 MB of data bytes that are all exactly zero.
2) COPY the file (so you eliminate the possibility of inadvertantly modifying the original) and open it with a text editor such as Wordpad. Scroll through the file until you start to see all the zeros(the zeros may be represented by a special character in the text editor - but the point is the section of zeros will all be the same so it is easy to recognize it), then continue scrolling through the data and check to see that all of the remaining data is exactly zero.
3) Play the original silence file on the DAW with a digital output (such as AES or SPDIF) looped back to a digital input and record the signal on another track.
4) Repeat step 2) above with the newly recorded track and see if all 4.3 MB of data are the same as the original file.

This should only take 15 minutes of your time. If any of the data changes, you know the DAW is changing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
And you're right, if the files are bit accurate then we can agree it's illusory. However, if they are not bit-accurate it still needs to be demonstrated that it's to a degree that somebody can hear the difference.
Correct, but step one is to see if the DAW is making any change in the data at all. Theoretically, it shouldn't. If we can prove unequivocally that it does not, then that should silence the illusionists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
And what's wrong with forum posters chiming in with their opinions? Ultimately the human ear has to be the test, I think we all agree. And this being a forum, it's reasonable to expect some forum posters to chime in with opinions. For better or worse, it's kind of the point.
I agree that is worth while, but it is still subjective. Again, lets start with step one - the DC test - simple to do and no one can argue with it - then lets increase the complexity and subjectivity of the tests.
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