The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is it about RADAR?
Old 16th March 2007
  #151
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
...The old Mix and previous systems sounded worse than my Dad's old underpants...
What type of drivers does your dad use in his underpants? Some dad's underpants may have a blown tweeter or a malfunctioning woofer. I suspect something along these lines may be negatively impacting the sound of your dad's old underpants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
...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?
Which converters are you using?
Old 16th March 2007
  #152
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
What type of drivers does your dad use in his underpants? Some dad's underpants may have a blown tweeter or a malfunctioning woofer. I suspect something along these lines may be negatively impacting the sound of your dad's old underpants.



Which converters are you using?
I have used various converters, including but not exclusive too: RME, Sony (DMX-R 100) and Studer (Vista 8 D21's), Danish Digital Audio Denmark (Sphinx 2), Digico D5. Personally speaking I particularly liked the Studer, DAD and the Sony, however results with the others were good too. The DA side (apart from a personal monitoring side) are irrelevant to the final product as most of my work is finished within the box.

Regards


Roland
Old 16th March 2007
  #153
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I have used various converters, including but not exclusive too: RME, Sony (DMX-R 100) and Studer (Vista 8 D21's), Danish Digital Audio Denmark (Sphinx 2), Digico D5. Personally speaking I particularly liked the Studer, DAD and the Sony, however results with the others were good too. The DA side (apart from a personal monitoring side) are irrelevant to the final product as most of my work is finished within the box.
The main factors that affect sound quality in a digital recording system are:

1) Power supply ripple
2) Power supply common mode rejection ratio
3) Power supply voltage rails: Must be at least +/- 18 volts to have enough headroom to come close to a good analog system.
4) Clock line design: Clock lines must be impedance matched, balanced, differential
5) Clock Jitter

If the converters are external to the DAW, then the clock must be transmitted on a single ended, unbalanced coax cable which is terminated by BNC connectors that cause reflected waves at both ends. The unbalanced cable and the termination impedance mismatches increase the noise on the clock signal, which in turn increases the clock jitter. This is due to the fact that the clock, which is a square wave, when switching from low to hi is detected by the receiving converters within a set threshold. If there is any noise at all superimposed onto the clock signal, it will cause the converter to trigger its sampling function at randomly different points in time - ergo - jitter. This will definitely affect the sound quality as jitter introduces sidebands into the audio signal. The only way around this is to use balanced, differential clock lines that are properly terminated at both ends - which is not possible with a coax cable or other serial data lines such as AES - they are not differntial signals.

A $100,000 converter will only sound as good as the clock lets it sound.
Old 16th March 2007
  #154
Lives for gear
What about the filters on the analogue ins and outs?
Old 16th March 2007
  #155
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
The main factors that affect sound quality in a digital recording system are:

1) Power supply ripple
2) Power supply common mode rejection ratio
3) Power supply voltage rails: Must be at least +/- 18 volts to have enough headroom to come close to a good analog system.
4) Clock line design: Clock lines must be impedance matched, balanced, differential
5) Clock Jitter

If the converters are external to the DAW, then the clock must be transmitted on a single ended, unbalanced coax cable which is terminated by BNC connectors that cause reflected waves at both ends. The unbalanced cable and the termination impedance mismatches increase the noise on the clock signal, which in turn increases the clock jitter. This is due to the fact that the clock, which is a square wave, when switching from low to hi is detected by the receiving converters within a set threshold. If there is any noise at all superimposed onto the clock signal, it will cause the converter to trigger its sampling function at randomly different points in time - ergo - jitter. This will definitely affect the sound quality as jitter introduces sidebands into the audio signal. The only way around this is to use balanced, differential clock lines that are properly terminated at both ends - which is not possible with a coax cable or other serial data lines such as AES - they are not differntial signals.

A $100,000 converter will only sound as good as the clock lets it sound.
Hi Barry,

Are you saying that all systems with external converters are inferior because of the clock?

I'm no electronics expert, however your advice flies in the face of any opinion I've heard expressed before, I'm sure that Dan Lavry, Michael Jurwitz, Bob Katz, Matthias Carstens and a few others would at least disagree with your conclusion if not your reasoning. I do hope that one of them is following this thread and will "chip" in.

Regards


Roland
Old 16th March 2007
  #156
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Hi Barry,
Are you saying that all systems with external converters are inferior because of the clock?

I'm no electronics expert, however your advice flies in the face of any opinion I've heard expressed before, I'm sure that Dan Lavry, Michael Jurwitz, Bob Katz, Matthias Carstens and a few others would at least disagree with your conclusion if not your reasoning. I do hope that one of them is following this thread and will "chip" in.
All digital equipment designers, including Dan Lavry, Michael Jurwitz, Bob Katz, Matthias Carstens and others, know that if a clock signal has noise on it, jitter will be induced. This is because if there is noise on the clock, the clock input to the converter will not always trigger a sample with the same interval between any two clock cycles. Noise is not in sync with the clock signal and it may be high at one moment and low the next.

For example, a clock switches bewteen lo = 0 volts and hi = 5 volts. If the trigger threshold for the converter is 2.5 volts and the clock signal is perfectly clean and there is no jitter in the period of the clock itself, then the converter will trigger on each rising clock edge at 2.5 volts consistently between each pair of clock pulses. However, if there is any noise, the noise voltage will add or subtract from the clock signal. In this case the clock may trigger early if the noise voltage is added to the clock signal voltage - because it rises through the 2.5 volt threshold sooner than it would had the noise voltage not been superimposed on it - and the clock may trigger late if the noise voltage is subtracted from the clock signal voltage - because it rises through the 2.5 volt threshold later than it would had the noise voltage not been superimposed on it.

Dan Lavry, Michael Jurwitz, Bob Katz, Matthias Carstens don't design digital recording systems - they design converters - so they must assume (hope) that the clock coming in to their converters is perfect. It is the responsibility of the digital recorder overall system designer to ensure that the clock going to the converters is perfectly clean. And who is the overall system designer of the DAW? It is You the recording engineer who is not an electronics expert. You just have to keep buying and trying and patching together different equipment with different cables until it all seems to work. Unfortunately, even then, the resulting system was not designed from its inception as a whole system, so none of the manufacturers of each of the separate pieces of equipment guarantee performance when it's all hooked together.

At least PT is a somewhat integrated system, but you still need to buy a separate, constantly changing computer system and separate cables to hook it all together. This makes the system more vulnerable to noise. A system that is designed from front to back in one box where all the components are carefully chosen, modeled and tested by the manufacturer to work as a whole can be much more noise immune. The recording engineer can purchase such a system, take it out of the box, turn on the power and it is guaranteed to work to the printed specifications. This allows the recording engineer to begin recording right away and focus on what they are good at which is recording - instead of having to invent and/or customize the design.

The only way to get an impeccably clean signal from the clock to the converter, is to transmit it over a balanced, shielded, differential path. This requires three wires, one for the signal, one for the return, and one for the shield. Since there are no such external clock interfaces (that I'm aware of) the only way to accomplish this is with an all in one box solution.

Also, whenever there is a BNC connection, even though the connectors themselves are designed to be impedance matched with each other to prevent reflected waves, they are not a perfect match since by definition, they are also designed for the purpose of being continuously connected and disconnected which compromises their "matchedness" (I coined that word - don't laugh too loudly). However if the clock is connected to the converter internally with fixed connections, the terminations can be more well matched - which also reduces jitter. This is pretty basic electronics and I'm sure the group you mentioned would agree with the principles.

Proof of these points about clock lines and clock line termination is to take an S-Nyquist(192 kHz) RADAR, which is all in one box, and hook it up to another identical S-Nyquist RADAR used as an external converter with the best possible cables. Do a controlled A/B double blind listening test between the one RADAR and the pair and you will find that the RADAR with the internal converters and internal balanced, shielded, differential clock lines and properly impedance matched terminations sounds better than the pair - even though they are the exact same clocks, same converters, same power supplies etc.
Old 16th March 2007
  #157
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
All digital equipment designers, including Dan Lavry, Michael Jurwitz, Bob Katz, Matthias Carstens and others, know that if a clock signal has noise on it, jitter will be induced. This is because if there is noise on the clock, the clock input to the converter will not always trigger a sample with the same interval between any two clock cycles. Noise is not in sync with the clock signal and it may be high at one moment and low the next.

For example, a clock switches bewteen lo = 0 volts and hi = 5 volts. If the trigger threshold for the converter is 2.5 volts and the clock signal is perfectly clean and there is no jitter in the period of the clock itself, then the converter will trigger on each rising clock edge at 2.5 volts consistently between each pair of clock pulses. However, if there is any noise, the noise voltage will add or subtract from the clock signal. In this case the clock may trigger early if the noise voltage is added to the clock signal voltage - because it rises through the 2.5 volt threshold sooner than it would had the noise voltage not been superimposed on it - and the clock may trigger late if the noise voltage is subtracted from the clock signal voltage - because it rises through the 2.5 volt threshold later than it would had the noise voltage not been superimposed on it.

Dan Lavry, Michael Jurwitz, Bob Katz, Matthias Carstens don't design digital recording systems - they design converters - so they must assume (hope) that the clock coming in to their converters is perfect. It is the responsibility of the digital recorder overall system designer to ensure that the clock going to the converters is perfectly clean. And who is the overall system designer of the DAW? It is You the recording engineer who is not an electronics expert. You just have to keep buying and trying and patching together different equipment with different cables until it all seems to work. Unfortunately, even then, the resulting system was not designed from its inception as a whole system, so none of the manufacturers of each of the separate pieces of equipment guarantee performance when it's all hooked together.

At least PT is a somewhat integrated system, but you still need to buy a separate, constantly changing computer system and separate cables to hook it all together. This makes the system more vulnerable to noise. A system that is designed from front to back in one box where all the components are carefully chosen, modeled and tested by the manufacturer to work as a whole can be much more noise immune. The recording engineer can purchase such a system, take it out of the box, turn on the power and it is guaranteed to work to the printed specifications. This allows the recording engineer to begin recording right away and focus on what they are good at which is recording - instead of having to invent and/or customize the design.

The only way to get an impeccably clean signal from the clock to the converter, is to transmit it over a balanced, shielded, differential path. This requires three wires, one for the signal, one for the return, and one for the shield. Since there are no such external clock interfaces (that I'm aware of) the only way to accomplish this is with an all in one box solution.

Also, whenever there is a BNC connection, even though the connectors themselves are designed to be impedance matched with each other to prevent reflected waves, they are not a perfect match since by definition, they are also designed for the purpose of being continuously connected and disconnected which compromises their "matchedness" (I coined that word - don't laugh too loudly). However if the clock is connected to the converter internally with fixed connections, the terminations can be more well matched - which also reduces jitter. This is pretty basic electronics and I'm sure the group you mentioned would agree with the principles.

Proof of these points about clock lines and clock line termination is to take an S-Nyquist(192 kHz) RADAR, which is all in one box, and hook it up to another identical S-Nyquist RADAR used as an external converter with the best possible cables. Do a controlled A/B double blind listening test between the one RADAR and the pair and you will find that the RADAR with the internal converters and internal balanced, shielded, differential clock lines and properly impedance matched terminations sounds better than the pair - even though they are the exact same clocks, same converters, same power supplies etc.

On that basis, your system would be of no benefit to someone who doesn't use a completely analogue chain? As soon as it was intergrated with a digital console (or for that matter any other type of digital system) all the "sonic" benefits would be lost?

I understand the point you are making, however this is a similar premise to the articles written by Bob Katz, who in conclusion then stated that because of the "buffering" within well designed modern convertors, jitter no longer presented a problem. Indeed as I understand it jitter isn't a problem with any of the modern samplerate converting convertors and furthermore, acording to Matthias Carsten a more accurate clock can be derived from the digital signal itself rather than an external clock due I believe to wordclocks relatively slow speed?

I am in no doubt as to the quality of RADAR convertors, however I do find the concept that their quality will be adversely effected by use of an external clock slightly unnerving, particularly as in this increasingly digital age the concept of a wholly analogue chain (with the exception of a RADAR unit) as slightly unrealistic.

Regards


Roland
Old 16th March 2007
  #158
Gear Maniac
 
Push845'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.
Ditto!
Old 16th March 2007
  #159
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
2) COPY the file (so you eliminate the possibility of inadvertantly modifying the original) and open it with a text editor such as Wordpad.
Sorry Barry, I can't seem to get Text Edit or Wordpad to open an audio file as a string of numbers. Maybe I should go ask a five year old how <g>

-R
Old 16th March 2007
  #160
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Proof of these points about clock lines and clock line termination is to take an S-Nyquist(192 kHz) RADAR, which is all in one box, and hook it up to another identical S-Nyquist RADAR used as an external converter with the best possible cables. Do a controlled A/B double blind listening test between the one RADAR and the pair and you will find that the RADAR with the internal converters and internal balanced, shielded, differential clock lines and properly impedance matched terminations sounds better than the pair - even though they are the exact same clocks, same converters, same power supplies etc.
What happens when people want to slave two Radars together for 48 tracks, which I would guess is almost all the time in modern pop production. Do you have a special interface cabling system that can preserve the quality on the second machine?

Are you making an assertion that external clocking is always inferior, or does Radar have its own way of receiving an external clock that is less than ideal?

Not meaning to be confrontational, but this is a big issue you are raising, and very consequential if we are talking about sonic differences that people can actually hear.

-R
Old 17th March 2007
  #161
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
On that basis, your system would be of no benefit to someone who doesn't use a completely analogue chain? As soon as it was intergrated with a digital console (or for that matter any other type of digital system) all the "sonic" benefits would be lost?
Not correct because many customers in Post, such as Technicolor, have digital only RADARs integrated with digital consoles. If there was no benefit they would not have purchased the systems - they would not have been able to get the P.O.s approved since the cost/benefit ratio would be infinite (with zero benefit) - that makes no sense.

Quote:
I understand the point you are making, however this is a similar premise to the articles written by Bob Katz, who in conclusion then stated that because of the "buffering" within well designed modern convertors, jitter no longer presented a problem.
Saying "jitter no longer presented a problem" requires some qualification. It may be that it no longer presents a problem today, but time has proven that human hearing gets accustomed to the current quality level - then people want higher quality. For example, when Edison demonstrated the world's first audio recorder in 1877, people commented that it sounded just like the original. By and by, it became apparent that sound improvement was needed. They went from the wax recorder to the wire recorder to paper magnetic tape (1925) to plastic magnetic tape (1939) to the CD (1985) etc. , each time people became accustomed to the sound quality and people eventually wanted higher quality. Today, many people say that we have finally arrived, that there are no more benefits to gain, that there are no further improvements in sound quality required. I think that is a very debatable subject, but I don't even worry about that, I just want to keep tweaking and improving the quality whenever new technology permits - and let the customer decide if the improvements are worth the money - if customers decide it's good enough, they will stop paying us for the technology - so far that has not happened.

Quote:
Indeed as I understand it jitter isn't a problem with any of the modern samplerate converting convertors and furthermore, acording to Matthias Carsten a more accurate clock can be derived from the digital signal itself rather than an external clock due I believe to wordclocks relatively slow speed?
The digital signals themselves have the same noise immunity issues as the clock on a coax cable since they are not balances, differential. Even ADAT, lightpipe if you look on a scope shows very sloped rising edges which cause the converters to trigger inconsistently. If you are going to extract the clock from the data stream, the best option is a high bandwidth optical connection such as optical MADI.

Quote:
I am in no doubt as to the quality of RADAR convertors, however I do find the concept that their quality will be adversely effected by use of an external clock slightly unnerving, particularly as in this increasingly digital age the concept of a wholly analogue chain (with the exception of a RADAR unit) as slightly unrealistic.
Yes. The quality of the clock to any converter will affect the quality of its conversion performance. If you put in very jittery clock in, you will get sidebands out - the converter is just responding to bad clock - what else can it do? If the converter could not track the clock there would be no point in having a clock since that is the definition of synchronization, i.e. to synchronize to or follow an external clock. If the external clock has jitter, the converter will respond accordingly and the audio will have sidebands.
Old 17th March 2007
  #162
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
What happens when people want to slave two Radars together for 48 tracks, which I would guess is almost all the time in modern pop production. Do you have a special interface cabling system that can preserve the quality on the second machine?

Are you making an assertion that external clocking is always inferior, or does Radar have its own way of receiving an external clock that is less than ideal?

Not meaning to be confrontational, but this is a big issue you are raising, and very consequential if we are talking about sonic differences that people can actually hear.
Yes. RADAR has a thing called RADARLink that is used for slaving up to 8 RADAR machines. Rather than using a word clock cable, we use a proprietary multi-pin cable that ensures extremely low jitter. In fact, within the cable is a dedicated reset line that resets the hardware of all the machines in the link when you link up, so that the actual real-time software code is running in sync in each machine. It is much more than sample accurate. In fact, it is so accurate that if you have a 48 track system and you Y the same signal to both machines and record it on say track 24 of the master and track 25(track 1) of the slave, the signals are positionally accurate to within thousands of a sample.
Old 17th March 2007
  #163
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Sorry Barry, I can't seem to get Text Edit or Wordpad to open an audio file as a string of numbers. Maybe I should go ask a five year old how <g>

-R
R,

There are two ways to do this:
1) Open Wordpad, click on File Open and browse to the folder where the file is located, then go to the bottom of the dialog box and select "All Files" from the "Files of Type" selection, then select the file.
2) Browse for the file, right click on the file and select, "Open With", a dialog box pops out, then hover to the bottom of that pop out box and select "Choose Program", then scroll through the list and choose "Wordpad". Take care NOT to click the box labeled, "Always use this program to open this type of file", or Windows will re-icon all of your audio files to be Wordpad files.
Old 17th March 2007
  #164
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
What about the filters on the analogue ins and outs?
Yes, but I never hear the power supply and clock line issues being raised, and they are so fundamentally important, that I wanted to focus on them for a change. If I were to talk about all the factors, I would list about 45 items and this thread would set a world record for length.
Old 17th March 2007
  #165
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
R,

There are two ways to do this:
1) Open Wordpad, click on File Open and browse to the folder where the file is located, then go to the bottom of the dialog box and select "All Files" from the "Files of Type" selection, then select the file.
2) Browse for the file, right click on the file and select, "Open With", a dialog box pops out, then hover to the bottom of that pop out box and select "Choose Program", then scroll through the list and choose "Wordpad". Take care NOT to click the box labeled, "Always use this program to open this type of file", or Windows will re-icon all of your audio files to be Wordpad files.
I'm on a Mac, I downloaded Wordpad, and it doesn't recognize the audio files at all. Text edit on the Mac just opens audio files as audio files. Honestly, looking at visual bits on some program is a little geeky for me, and i'd be happy to accept someone else's results on this.

I'm not convinced this is an issue anyway. If an audible difference can be demonstrated then by all means, let's look for the cause. In digital audio there are numerous occasions in which a 24 bit number is expanded then reduced back to 24 bit with no negative consequences.

The jitter discussion is interesting. I wish Bob Katz or somebody would chime in. I'm sure that Max from Apogee is a big believer in external clocking, and there are many who swear by the Big Ben.

In any case, isn't there anybody out there who could post a couple of comparison files? Audio played right off of Radar versus the same audio played off a DAW through the Radar's converters? If you wanted to get tweaky, you could clock both the Radar and the DAW off an external clock, to see if the DAE somehow degrades the audio as Barry suggested.

-R
Old 17th March 2007
  #166
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
I'm on a Mac, I downloaded Wordpad, and it doesn't recognize the audio files at all. Text edit on the Mac just opens audio files as audio files.

-R
I thought you were using Wordpad on a Windows PC. I don't know how to do it on a Mac. Is there a way to use "Open File With" on a Mac? i.e. opening a file with a program that was not originally intended to be use to open that file? I did this yesterday on a PC using a RADAR recorded silence file and it opened up in Wordpad.

Another option is to download some sort of freeware program that lets you look at the audio itself. I'll poke around the web for one.
Old 17th March 2007
  #167
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
I thought you were using Wordpad on a Windows PC. I don't know how to do it on a Mac. Is there a way to use "Open File With" on a Mac? i.e. opening a file with a program that was not originally intended to be use to open that file? I did this yesterday on a PC using a RADAR recorded silence file and it opened up in Wordpad.

Another option is to download some sort of freeware program that lets you look at the audio itself. I'll poke around the web for one.
You can download a program called "BWAV Reader" or "BWAV Writer" from http://http://www.quesosoft.com/

With this program, you simply drag the file onto the application and it displays all the attributes of the BWAV file. It also has a "Reveal File" button that lets you see all the data in the file. I downloaded it to Windows laptop. Unfortunately in Windows, when I press the button it says, "Can't do this in Windows, sorry". Perhaps it will work on your Mac. Try it and let me know.
Old 17th March 2007
  #168
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
I just love the simple fact that Barry is coming on to this forum on a Friday night, Saturday and even Sundays to talk about the Radar unit... Barry your a class act..!!

I would love to hear from other guys associated with Digidesign, Alesis...
Etc...

But they are probibly to busy playing golf or too busy off working on Software updates to patch their awful bug ridden interfaces...

Old 17th March 2007
  #169
Gear Nut
 

Viewing data in a BWAV file

I found a program called Quick View Plus that allows you to view any file in Hexadecimal. I downloaded the trial version and loaded in my silence file. The resulting view "Silence.jpg" is attached, as well as the 24 bit 48 kHz silence file. Now all that is needed is to play this file from a DAW with a digital I/O loopback and record it. If anyone wants to do this and upload the recorded silence file, I'll download it and view it to see if there are any artifacts, and then upload the resulting view.
Attached Thumbnails
What is it about RADAR?-silence.jpg  
Attached Files

Silence.wav (4.81 MB, 181 views)

Old 17th March 2007
  #170
Gear Nut
 
N.J.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
You can download a program called "BWAV Reader" or "BWAV Writer" from http://http://www.quesosoft.com/

With this program, you simply drag the file onto the application and it displays all the attributes of the BWAV file. It also has a "Reveal File" button that lets you see all the data in the file. I downloaded it to Windows laptop. Unfortunately in Windows, when I press the button it says, "Can't do this in Windows, sorry". Perhaps it will work on your Mac. Try it and let me know.
BWAV Reader 1.1 &ndash; Mac OS X &ndash; VersionTracker is the link.

I tried it, and BWAV reader only shows you the header information. The 'reveal' only shows you the file in finder.

If you cntl-click on the file on a mac, you will get the 'open with' option to use text editor. Doesn't look the same on the mac as it did on the PC. I'll see if I can find something for the mac.
Old 19th March 2007
  #171
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
I found a program called Quick View Plus that allows you to view any file in Hexadecimal. I downloaded the trial version and loaded in my silence file. The resulting view "Silence.jpg" is attached, as well as the 24 bit 48 kHz silence file. Now all that is needed is to play this file from a DAW with a digital I/O loopback and record it. If anyone wants to do this and upload the recorded silence file, I'll download it and view it to see if there are any artifacts, and then upload the resulting view.
How ironic that we would compare recordings of silence to determine which platform sounds better.

-R
Old 19th March 2007
  #172
Lives for gear
 
PhilE's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
How ironic that we would compare recordings of silence to determine which platform sounds better.

-R




---------

So is it worth me hooking up my RADAR II at the front of my PT Mix3 rig or not? I'm going to have to buy ADAT bridges and TDIF converters to do it. Will it sound better than 882s and 888s?
Old 19th March 2007
  #173
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
How ironic that we would compare recordings of silence to determine which platform sounds better.
I can hear it now. Or maybe not.

"My silence sounds better than your silence!"
Old 19th March 2007
  #174
Gear Nut
 
gamrecords's Avatar
 

that really is some nice sounding silence...
do they have a "wife silence" file I could run? Or, better yet a "creditor silence" file? I could use these in constant rotation and you'd probably make a mint.

michael bliss
Old 19th March 2007
  #175
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamrecords View Post
that really is some nice sounding silence...
do they have a "wife silence" file I could run? Or, better yet a "creditor silence" file? I could use these in constant rotation and you'd probably make a mint.

michael bliss
Silence is golden...
Old 20th March 2007
  #176
Gear Nut
 
RedEar's Avatar
 

But has anyone tried it? What does it tell you? I for one would love to see a few samples, PTHD, Apogee etc.
Old 20th March 2007
  #177
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedEar View Post
But has anyone tried it? What does it tell you? I for one would love to see a few samples, PTHD, Apogee etc.
Believe me, no matter what the numbers look like, the two "silence" files will be inaudible.

-R
Old 20th March 2007
  #178
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Believe me, no matter what the numbers look like, the two "silence" files will be inaudible.

-R
R,

This was never intended to be an audible test. Don't forget that the point of the test is to see if a DAW modifies a file in any way during playback. The only reason we are using silence is because it's an easy file to generate - this is my DC test and silence is just a form of DC. You may want to go back and re-read my DC test posts. That is why I went to the trouble of generating the file and posting it so all you had to do is download it, play it back, lopp it back, record it, and compare. Did you do this yet? I don't have a DAW so I can't do it, but it shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes of your time - less time than it takes to post a few thoughts on Gearslutz.

If you do the test and ANY of the "0s" come back as a "1", then we can conclude that your DAW is modifying the data somehow, but that does not prove that it is an audible change. From there we start increasing the complexity of the DC test and if need be, I can start creating some more complex DC files on MATLab, such as a constant stream of "000011111111111111111111" and we can see how the DAW is changing them and try to figure out what is going on. Even if the silence test shows no modification, it might be worth while doing the more complex data test just to make sure. For example, there may a minimum threshold during recording below which your DAW may define it as incoming silence and simply go into mute, which would reset all the data to zero, thus nullifying the test. As I said in an earlier post, this is not a subjective sound quality test, just an on/off, black/white, 1/0 test.

However, if after doing these tests we can prove that no data modification is occurring, then it should theoretically "silence" the so called "illusionists" - those who perceive that they hear modified sound playing from the hard disk of a DAW through RADAR vs playing directly from RADAR's audio disk through the same converters and with the same clock.
Old 20th March 2007
  #179
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
R,

This was never intended to be an audible test. Don't forget that the point of the test is to see if a DAW modifies a file in any way during playback. The only reason we are using silence is because it's an easy file to generate - this is my DC test and silence is just a form of DC. You may want to go back and re-read my DC test posts. That is why I went to the trouble of generating the file and posting it so all you had to do is download it, play it back, lopp it back, record it, and compare. Did you do this yet? I don't have a DAW so I can't do it, but it shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes of your time - less time than it takes to post a few thoughts on Gearslutz.

If you do the test and ANY of the "0s" come back as a "1", then we can conclude that your DAW is modifying the data somehow, but that does not prove that it is an audible change. From there we start increasing the complexity of the DC test and if need be, I can start creating some more complex DC files on MATLab, such as a constant stream of "000011111111111111111111" and we can see how the DAW is changing them and try to figure out what is going on. Even if the silence test shows no modification, it might be worth while doing the more complex data test just to make sure. For example, there may a minimum threshold during recording below which your DAW may define it as incoming silence and simply go into mute, which would reset all the data to zero, thus nullifying the test. As I said in an earlier post, this is not a subjective sound quality test, just an on/off, black/white, 1/0 test.

However, if after doing these tests we can prove that no data modification is occurring, then it should theoretically "silence" the so called "illusionists" - those who perceive that they hear modified sound playing from the hard disk of a DAW through RADAR vs playing directly from RADAR's audio disk through the same converters and with the same clock.

Barry this must be possible on a DAW or it would render all null tests a waste of time. Besides in what way is RADAR different to a DAW?

Last time I looked inside a Radar it contained a PC board, SCSI card, Ram, Processor, graphics card? So it has a dedicated operating system and on-board AD convertor, in what way is it not a DAW?

Regards


Roland
Old 20th March 2007
  #180
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Barry this must be possible on a DAW or it would render all null tests a waste of time. Besides in what way is RADAR different to a DAW?

Last time I looked inside a Radar it contained a PC board, SCSI card, Ram, Processor, graphics card? So it has a dedicated operating system and on-board AD convertor, in what way is it not a DAW?

Regards


Roland
1) It seems everyone wants to talk about the issue but no-one wants to test it. If you read this thread, you will see that some users have said that when they play an audio file from the RADAR hard disk through RADAR's converters, it sounds better than when they play the same file from a DAW hard disk through RADAR's converters (with the same clock). The only way this is possible is if the DAW is modifying the audio data through it's native processing before it gets to RADAR. I've devised a very simple series of tests to prove this objectively. So far, no one has done the test - which is Ok - I'm just trying to help bring some logic to the debate.

2) RADAR's DAWness: If you want to define a DAW very broadly as an electronic device that records digital audio, then I suppose you could call RADAR a DAW. However, more specifically, DAWs are designed to not only record audio, but to process it in real time as well and so they are constantly processing (mathematically manipulating) the audio data, even in playback. RADAR does not do this. RADAR records incoming 24 bit samples from the A/D to a hard disk, and then plays them back to the D/A without any mathematical processing. The data path is always exactly 24 bits - there is no mix buss, which by definition multiplies the audio data by the value of the channel fader. If the fader is at zero dB, then the multiplier is 1. However, multiplying a 24 bit "1" by a 24 bit audio data sample yeilds a greater than 24 bit result, which must be either dithered or truncated back to 24 bits again before it goes out to the D/A, which is only 24 bits wide. While DAWs (I believe - but could be wrong) always do this, RADAR can't possibly do this because there is no mixer or processing designed into it - it is a straight 24 bit path all the way through. RADAR was created to be a purpose built recording machine and it is designed to NOT process audio in order to provide the most faithful reproduction of sound possible. Picture RADAR as a very high quality capture device like a $10,000 digital camera with a $15,000 highly polished lens. Such cameras are designed to capture the image in the highest possible quality. When you want to edit such a picture, you transfer it to Photoshop and have some fun - but you would not take the picture with Photoshop (some might try to - but don't show up at a Wedding shoot with a PC and a USB camera - you'll lose the gig). In the same way, for those who demand the best quality sound, the concept is that you capture the moment on RADAR, and then transfer to a DAW for editing. For those who can't afford this, or who are happy with DAW capture - they have an all-in-one system for less money. Does this make sense?
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