The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is it about RADAR?
Old 20th March 2007
  #181
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
How ironic that we would compare recordings of silence to determine which platform sounds better.

-R
Where is Yoko Ono when you need her .. eh?
Old 20th March 2007
  #182
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
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?

A DAW should only be mathmatically manipulating the data if you tell it too. For instance, my Pyramix used in it's basic form is a 2-128 channel recorder, with 2-128 channel outputs, no data manipulation at all. Of course I can install a mixer in there and have a mixed output, plugin's all that I want, but that only represents taking a radar and either transfering the files to a DAW or mixing on a digital console. Of course that doesn't preclude its use as a digital recorder for an analogue desk, however I can also do that with my Pyramix and dare I say it Pro-Tools.

As I said in my first post, Radar is a great sounding piece of kit, the original Radar one was revolutionary in it's day, however I've seen no good explanation as to why it should sound any better than a top quality modern workstation. The clocking argument doesn't hold up, neither does the "ghost in the machine" change of data. I have seen people claim they can hear differences in two files that null, but I think that has more to do with peoples perception of their hearing rather than any real differences. My point in my previous post was, that if you can achieve a perfect null (any many people, particularly mastering engineers do this as a matter of routine in their work) the files must be identical, to me that is the equivalent of your complex "random" file test.

I'm not trying to "diss" Radar, that it sounds wonderful I don't think anyone is disputing,however IMHO it possibly lacks the flexibility that a DAW offers and is relatively expensive.

regards to all


Roland
Old 20th March 2007
  #183
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
however IMHO it possibly lacks the flexibility that a DAW offers and is relatively expensive.
It's expensive, but it's not relatively expensive.

24 i/o of apogee AD/DA conversion would cost you $9k. And that's all you get. No storage medium, no software, no session controller....

An HD rig, with not so stellar 192's as conversion will run you higher.
Old 20th March 2007
  #184
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
A DAW should only be mathmatically manipulating the data if you tell it too. For instance, my Pyramix used in it's basic form is a 2-128 channel recorder, with 2-128 channel outputs, no data manipulation at all. Of course I can install a mixer in there and have a mixed output, plugin's all that I want, but that only represents taking a radar and either transfering the files to a DAW or mixing on a digital console. Of course that doesn't preclude its use as a digital recorder for an analogue desk, however I can also do that with my Pyramix and dare I say it Pro-Tools.
Hi Roland,

In Pyramix, can you force it to record and play back with a guaranteed 24 bit path and not process the audio - thereby eliminating the inevitable truncation or dithering? So far no one has been able to clarify that for me with any DAW. If you could that would be helpful.

Quote:
As I said in my first post, Radar is a great sounding piece of kit, the original Radar one was revolutionary in it's day, however I've seen no good explanation as to why it should sound any better than a top quality modern workstation. The clocking argument doesn't hold up, neither does the "ghost in the machine" change of data. I have seen people claim they can hear differences in two files that null, but I think that has more to do with peoples perception of their hearing rather than any real differences. My point in my previous post was, that if you can achieve a perfect null (any many people, particularly mastering engineers do this as a matter of routine in their work) the files must be identical, to me that is the equivalent of your complex "random" file test.

I'm not trying to "diss" Radar, that it sounds wonderful I don't think anyone is disputing,however IMHO it possibly lacks the flexibility that a DAW offers and is relatively expensive.

regards to all


Roland
I don't at all get the feeling that you are trying to "diss" RADAR. It does lack the flexibility of a DAW because it was never designed to be a DAW. I hope I have not given you the impression that we are positioning it as a DAW in my posts. As for the price, if you consider that the RADAR S-Nyquist has won listening tests around the world up against the highest end converters out there it is not that expensive, for example, 24 channels of Lavry A/D/A retails at about $30k, whereas RADAR V S-Nyquist is only $20k for as good or better qualtiy - plus you get a free recorder with it.
Old 20th March 2007
  #185
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
In Pyramix, can you force it to record and play back with a guaranteed 24 bit path and not process the audio - thereby eliminating the inevitable truncation or dithering? So far no one has been able to clarify that for me with any DAW. If you could that would be helpful.
Barry, it's your own conjecture that a DAW changes the files even when its not doing any processing to the data, so the burden of proof is upon you. I don't think anybody else believes this is true to the point of wanting to bother with it. I took a stab at downloading the right software, etc, but couldn't make it happen. And if there is some change in the numbers, the question still remains whether it is in any way audible.

Secondly, even on a Radar, what you get out will in some way be different from what goes in, if only because it has to go through some analog processing which is never 100 percent transparent. One could argue that in a DAW, since you never have to go back our through your converters if you mix itb then you don't have to suffer that additional stage of analog inaccuracy. Not to mention the horrible things the console will do to the audio represented by those least significant bits. Of course, some people like this and think is sounds better, even though it would measure worse.

Finally, who is it that made this original claim? Was he in fact using the same external clock for Radar and the DAW? If he was using the Radar to clock the DAW then as you've pointed out the DAW may sound worse because it's using an external clock.

-R
Old 20th March 2007
  #186
Gear Nut
 
RedEar's Avatar
 

I think I would disagree that the burden of proof is on anyone at IZ. Barry has actualy already gone out of his way to help people answer a question they were asking. Not him. Furthermore, IZ never claimed this happens. He suspects or perhaps knows, or even is just guessing.
If people dont care they dont care but it is not Barry's job to make it happpen IMHO.
I dont work for Radar. I have been a fan, and after seeing Barry personaly responding to this forum on weekends it has sealed the deal and when I can afford it I will buy Radar. Even if it is just the same as many other Digital recording systems. When was the last time the presedent of any other company went this far out of his way to help in an experiment that could actualy just prove that a lot of high end DAWs do something similar to Radar?
Expecting IZ or Barry to buy PTHD or any other DAW to prove someone else to be corect or incorect is going too far I say.
Old 20th March 2007
  #187
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedEar View Post
I think I would disagree that the burden of proof is on anyone at IZ. Barry has actualy already gone out of his way to help people answer a question they were asking. Not him. Furthermore, IZ never claimed this happens. He suspects or perhaps knows, or even is just guessing.
As I said, it's his conjecture. If you make an unsupported assertion about a competitor's product perhaps it's your responsibility to back it up.

Personally, I really don't think it matters or that this accounts for the differences people hear between Radar and DAWs.

I also think it's a red herring in a way. In a digital mixer numbers are expanded and then dithered back to 24 bits all the time. I've demonstrated to myself and others many times that this can happen without creating any AUDIBLE difference whatsoever.

So going to the trouble to investigate Barry's silence file will prove nothing other than whether his conjecture is accurate.

-R
Old 20th March 2007
  #188
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
As I said, it's his conjecture. If you make an unsupported assertion about a competitor's product perhaps it's your responsibility to back it up.
Actually it was "users" observation. Barry clearly stated he didn't know if it was imaginary or not. But what he did do was offer some possiblities (not assertions)and ways to test for it. Take it or leave it man.
Old 20th March 2007
  #189
Gear Maniac
 
Firefox's Avatar
 

radar works, always has.
Old 20th March 2007
  #190
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
Actually it was "users" observation. Barry clearly stated he didn't know if it was imaginary or not. But what he did do was offer some possiblities (not assertions)and ways to test for it. Take it or leave it man.
It was Barry's assertion that a DAW can't spit out a bit accurate version of what goes into it.

And I'll leave it at that.

-R
Old 21st March 2007
  #191
Lives for gear
 
Sofa King's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
It all depends what you are trying to do. To just state that getting things 'perfect' is easier in a PC-Mac style DAW is just not true.
.
Whoa,
I can tell that you love Radar, as do I, but come on.
Please don’t compare the two systems as they’re different tools.

I could use my favorite screw driver to pound a nail in.
Eventually it would work, but not as quickly as my favorite hammer.

If you’re using an Antares box to do tuning [not the software], just so that you can "stay" in Radar, well that’s just archaic.

First, you’re gaining 2generations/conversions.
Secondly, you cannot work with the level of detail with the hardware box as you can with the software. There are software feature sets missing in the box version.

This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact.


I’ve got both systems.
Radar sounds great, its bullet proof, and it syncs easily.

But editing and manipulating is where PT shines.

I track through Radar printing as I also print in Pro Tools.
I get a great conversion, and immediate backup during the session.
So when PT crashes, and it does, the take is still safe and sound in the best capture device, Radar.

All the best,
Sean
Old 21st March 2007
  #192
Lives for gear
 
Tony Shepperd's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofa King View Post
Whoa,
I can tell that you love Radar, as do I, but come on.
Please don’t compare the two systems as they’re different tools.

I could use my favorite screw drive to pound a nail in.
Eventually it would work, but not as quickly as my favorite hammer.

If you’re using an Antares box to do tuning [not the software], just so that you can "stay" in Radar, well that’s just archaic.

First, you’re gaining 2generations/conversions.
Secondly, you cannot work with the level of detail with the hardware box as you can with the software. There are software feature sets missing in the box version.

This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact.


I’ve got both systems.
Radar sounds great, its bullet proof, and it syncs easily.

But editing and manipulating and is where PT shines.

I track through Radar printing as I also print in Pro Tools.
I get a great conversion, and immediate backup during the session.
So when PT crashes, and it does, the take is still safe and sound in the best capture device, Radar.

All the best,
Sean
Well said... outstanding!
Old 21st March 2007
  #193
Gear Addict
 
zenmastering's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Hi Roland,

In Pyramix, can you force it to record and play back with a guaranteed 24 bit path and not process the audio - thereby eliminating the inevitable truncation or dithering? So far no one has been able to clarify that for me with any DAW. If you could that would be helpful.
Hi Barry,

I can confirm that Pyramix will record and playback absolutely bit accurate audio at 16 and 24 bit wordlengths. It's a routine test that I do for every new release that I get. In my more distant experience, Sadie was also 'bit-perfect.'

Silence or null test- whichever, it's always been fine with the rare exception of some alpha-versions.

Best,

Graemme
Old 21st March 2007
  #194
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofa King View Post
I track through Radar printing as I also print in Pro Tools.
I get a great conversion, and immediate backup during the session.
So when PT crashes, and it does, the take is still safe and sound in the best capture device, Radar.

All the best,
Sean
Hey Sean, you'd be the best guy to answer the question we've been kicking around. When you play your tracks off PT through the Radar converters do they sound worse than when you just play them straight off the Radar?

-R
Old 22nd March 2007
  #195
Gear Nut
 
1954U1's Avatar
 

I think Barry is right.
The DAWs are simply not built to leave intact the audio data passing through.
The RADAR, is.

Its so simple..
anytime you modify audio in digital domain,
and/or change at least 2 times bit/sample rate,
you maybe achieve something, but you lose resolution.
Not a tragedy, if we know the issue, and how to not exaggerate,
but the DAWs _are_ built to do these mods.
So, leave alone this great poor lonesome signal on his horse as we can..

I'm so happy in discovering here at GS what I need.
Tonelux console and Radar, for now.
And a ctrl-surface because of MIDI-controlled gears [ahh, my old EMU e6400].
After 10 years of C, Perl, and assembler coding, with the money made
I can finally get back to music.

heh
Old 22nd March 2007
  #196
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1954U1 View Post
I think Barry is right.
The DAWs are simply not built to leave intact the audio data passing through.
The RADAR, is.

Its so simple..
anytime you modify audio in digital domain,
and/or change at least 2 times bit/sample rate,
you maybe achieve something, but you lose resolution.
Not a tragedy, if we know the issue, and how to not exaggerate,
but the DAWs _are_ built to do these mods.
So, leave alone this great poor lonesome signal on his horse as we can..

I'm so happy in discovering here at GS what I need.
Tonelux console and Radar, for now.
And a ctrl-surface because of MIDI-controlled gears [ahh, my old EMU e6400].
After 10 years of C, Perl, and assembler coding, with the money made
I can finally get back to music.

heh

What you do with a DAW is not the issue here, that a DAW can or not pass audio without gaining or losing anything is, and if you read the post above from Graemme about Pyramix you can see an example of at least one that can and I suspect that others do too.

So you can modify audio with a DAW, big deal, what do you think you are doing with your console or Radar convertors every time you pass it. What happens when you mix audio or add effects? This argument get's silly.

With all due respect to Barry he hasn't offered any real explaination as to why Radar "sound's better" just a lot of dubious speculation, )some of it that has been well refuted,) and gobbledegook. Also it should be remembered if you open up a Radar unit you will see (amongst other things) a PC motherboard, CPU, Ram, graphics adapter, hard drives. It can't be denied that because Radar is only being used for it's own audio system it probably is running way under the wire in terms of system performance, this is probably why it is so reliable.

I can talk from my own experience, (and I was a Radar owner) in that as good as it is, I would still need to have the DAW for many parts of my work that Radar can't do. My only criteria was that I couldn't take a quality drop so I ended up buying Pyramix, which for me has proven to be the right move.

Regards


Roland
Old 22nd March 2007
  #197
11413
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
It was Barry's assertion that a DAW can't spit out a bit accurate version of what goes into it. And I'll leave it at that.
barry said there's something happening with protools' mixer which is affecting sound quality upon playback.

you cant listen to a file in protools without going thru the mixer.

the PTs mixer feeds an accumulator (why? because you need more than 24 bits to mix two 24 bit signals) and, since RADAR has no mixer, RADAR has no accumulator.

"first do no harm"...

he also told you why wordclock needs a balanced cable.. just like a mic needs a balanced cable.. just like AC needs a balanced cable.. or are you gonna tell me the world is flat with balanced AC too?

i WISH you'd "leave it at that..."
Old 22nd March 2007
  #198
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11413 View Post
barry said there's something happening with protools' mixer which is affecting sound quality upon playback.

you cant listen to a file in protools without going thru the mixer.

the PTs mixer feeds an accumulator (why? because you need more than 24 bits to mix two 24 bit signals) and, since RADAR has no mixer, RADAR has no accumulator.

"first do no harm"...

he also told you why wordclock needs a balanced cable.. just like a mic needs a balanced cable.. just like AC needs a balanced cable.. or are you gonna tell me the world is flat with balanced AC too?

i WISH you'd "leave it at that..."
But it is at this moment pure speculation as to if Pro-Tools "accumalator" changes the data at all, or enough that it makes a difference.

The wordclock issue is a complete red herring. Although I'm sure technically what he is saying could happen, it doesn't happen due to the safeguards of modern converter design. These issues have been addressed many times over the last couple of years, not least by Bob Katz and several notable designers. Clocking is an area that causes a lot of confusion, not least because several manufacturers with vested interest have sought to keep it that way.

AC doesn't need a balanced cable, the third wire is an earth not a screen and is not always required.

Regards


Roland
Old 22nd March 2007
  #199
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
It was Barry's assertion that a DAW can't spit out a bit accurate version of what goes into it.

And I'll leave it at that.
Actually this is what he said:



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.


The guy isn't making any wild claims, he's just trying to understand and be helpfull regarding claims by users.
Old 22nd March 2007
  #200
Gear Nut
 
1954U1's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
So you can modify audio with a DAW, big deal, what do you think you are doing with your console or Radar convertors every time you pass it. What happens when you mix audio or add effects? This argument get's silly.
If I mix OTB or add hardware effects, I for sure change the sound in some ways, maybe add noise..
but if I do it ITB, I lose resolution.
Someone says this is hearable, someone says is not.
For sure, more high the sampling rate and bit depth, the less resolution's loss.
So, welcome to DAWs CPU improvements.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Also it should be remembered if you open up a Radar unit you will see (amongst other things) a PC motherboard, CPU, Ram, graphics adapter, hard drives. It can't be denied that because Radar is only being used for it's own audio system it probably is running way under the wire in terms of system performance, this is probably why it is so reliable.
Radar do not use any of this pieces to change audio bit depth or sample rate, if I understand well.
I consider it [and quality convs] more valuable, than being R a dedicated system.
Only my opinion..
Old 22nd March 2007
  #201
Gear Maniac
 
Stormkloud's Avatar
 

WOW this thread is still going !
I didnt really mean to contribute to starting a debate like this. I see some people get a bit uneasy about the fact that there may be some resolution loss when passing audio thru the mix buss of your daw and out the digital outs.
I dont think Barry made any claim of his own that this is effecting the sound as we hear it. I think he is just honestly trying to help out by giving some possibilities why some people hear a difference.
I am amazed once again how awesome Barry and NJ are with support for their product. In my 5 or so years in this business I have never seen any company so committed to their customers and to the support of their product. They are truely a class act. I feel that buying into Radar was the best choice Ive made in audio both sonically and on a support level.

keep up the great work IZ ! alot of people appreciate every thing you guys do !
Old 22nd March 2007
  #202
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1954U1 View Post
If I mix OTB or add hardware effects, I for sure change the sound in some ways, maybe add noise..
but if I do it ITB, I lose resolution.
Someone says this is hearable, someone says is not.
For sure, more high the sampling rate and bit depth, the less resolution's loss.
So, welcome to DAWs CPU improvements.
You shouldn't be losing resolution, not if the DAW software is properly implimented. In a digital mixer there is an argument that at each stage the signal is truncated to 24 bit, but in a DAW this should only happen on the mix buss master.


Quote:
Radar do not use any of this pieces to change audio bit depth or sample rate, if I understand well.
I consider it [and quality convs] more valuable, than being R a dedicated system.
Only my opinion..
And neither do most DAW's, for certain Pyramix doesn't. Of course if you choose to change the bit rate or the sampling frequency this could have an effect on quality, but why would you choose to do this? Possibly on a final mix for a CD Master you would choose to dither to 16bit, but this is the case with something mixed from Radar and mastered for CD too.

Regards


Roland
Old 22nd March 2007
  #203
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11413 View Post
barry said there's something happening with protools' mixer which is affecting sound quality upon playback.

you cant listen to a file in protools without going thru the mixer.
Who was it that used to call statements like this "proof by assertion".

-R
Old 22nd March 2007
  #204
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I still believe that the reason some people prefer Radar to a DAW is that they prefer going through a console, which you must do with Radar.

For every person out there raving about how great their Radar is, there is most likely someone who feels the same way about running their Protools rig through a nice console. Plenty of anecdotal evidence for both of these.

This business of looking at silence bits under a microscope and then assuming that any alteration, if there in fact is any, will in any way be audible, is nonesense.

-R
Old 22nd March 2007
  #205
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
Actually this is what he said:



I could be wrong, but my understanding is that in a Radar, files are read off the disk into either a hardware DSP chip (as they are in PT hardware) or into the Host processor CPU . 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.

.
As he pointed out he could be wrong. Is this his understanding of how it works or not? I mean, it's lookup-able, right? If you know that to be true, then say so. If not, then where is the speculation coming from?

Even if true, we're talking about the difference between large words dithered to 24 bits versus 24 bit words spit out as is. Either case is incredibly fine resolution. Is it humanly possible to even hear such a difference?

The correct circular answer, of course is "Apparently so, because lots of people can hear the difference between Radar and a DAW".

Carry on.

-R
Old 22nd March 2007
  #206
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Who was it that used to call statements like this "proof by assertion".

-R
Your quoting a person who was paraphrasing Barry's quote (which I have posted) and choose to ignore Barry's words in favor of a third person so as to support your inquisition?

This is really light weight man.
Old 22nd March 2007
  #207
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
Your quoting a person who was paraphrasing Barry's quote (which I have posted) and choose to ignore Barry's words in favor of a third person so as to support your inquisition?

This is really light weight man.
Look up two posts and you'll see his statement posted yet again, with my response.

The words you chose to highlight are his disclaimers, and I agree that's the most important part of his statement.

In light of the disclaimers I suggest dismissing his whole conjecture as yet more mythology. I'm not saying he's being self-serving--Barry's got a great rep here and I'm sure it's deserved--but people come on here and just bandy about any old theory and soon it gets repeated to the point of being accepted fact. (There was a time when people were terrified of moving a fader in Protools because they had become convinced it would totally corrupt the audio.)

You know, there was a test in which various DAWs were used to sum the same 24 tracks. People heard and swore by all sorts of differences. Turns out that upon analysis even DAWs by different manufacturers were turning out bit-accurate identical files when summing.

-R
Old 22nd March 2007
  #208
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
As he pointed out he could be wrong. Is this his understanding of how it works or not? I mean, it's lookup-able, right? If you know that to be true, then say so. If not, then where is the speculation coming from?

Even if true, we're talking about the difference between large words dithered to 24 bits versus 24 bit words spit out as is. Either case is incredibly fine resolution. Is it humanly possible to even hear such a difference?

The correct circular answer, of course is "Apparently so, because lots of people can hear the difference between Radar and a DAW".

Carry on.

-R
I said "I could be wrong" because although I know that all workstations pass audio through math by design, I don't know for sure that some DAWs don't have a specific setting to prevent this. According to Graemme, Pyramix can go direct, thus preventing audio data from being modified by the math processing.

Graemme, can you do the silence test?
Old 22nd March 2007
  #209
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
...I suggest dismissing his whole conjecture as yet more mythology. -R
Suggesting that my "conjecture", as you call it, is mythology, continues to propagate the very subjectivism that you desire to quash.

If you would simply perform the test, you could revive the objective analysis that everyone is looking for but never seems to get.
Old 22nd March 2007
  #210
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Suggesting that my "conjecture", as you call it, is mythology, continues to propagate the very subjectivism that you desire to quash.

If you would simply perform the test, you could revive the objective analysis that everyone is looking for but never seems to get.
It's not a conjecture? Then what's with all the disclaimers? Do you know this to be the case or not?

As I posted before, in a digital mixer numbers are expanded and then dithered back to 24 bits all the time. I've demonstrated to myself and others many times that this can happen without creating any AUDIBLE difference whatsoever. So the silence test, regardless of its outcome, doesn't shed any light on this.

If somebody else thinks it's meaningful in any way, then I also invite them to do the test and make a case for what the results signify.

-R
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