The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is it about RADAR?
Old 26th March 2007
  #241
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofa King View Post
Though I will fuel or water to fire by adding this....
Tracks recorded into Radar, and then imported into PT, sound a slight bit different [perhaps better], than when I just track through Radars converters and print directly to PT.

The smart guys here may have an explanation for this, or I could just be entirely insane.

BTW, everything is being clocked by Big Ben, so I dont think its a clocking issue.


All the best,
Sean
I visited a friend of mine on a session where they had been recording to Radar II prior to dumping into pro-tools. The Radar packed up on them so they decided to start recording directly into pro-tools (this was an HD system). His comment was "hey listen too this" I did, and the pro-tools sounded great, he personally reckoned that the HD rig was noticeably better sound than the Radar II.

I agree with RKrizman, you shouldn't be going through a stereo channel as you are subject to the vagaries of the systems pan law. That being said, if the only change to the data is a level change then the supposition you are making Barry can't really be correct.

Regards


Roland
Old 26th March 2007
  #242
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
...if the only change to the data is a level change then the supposition you are making Barry can't really be correct.

Regards


Roland
Roland,

I'm not trying to make a supposition, just looking for an explanation. I'm looking for a reason why users hear a difference and trying to bring some objectivity to it.

It made sense to me that a greater level may be perceived as a better sound since different harmonics may rise above the noise floor (not just the system noise floor, but also the ambient noise floor) and become apparent to the user. Do you think that's possible?

Last edited by bhenderson; 26th March 2007 at 01:28 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 26th March 2007
  #243
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Make sure there are no plugs running, all the faders are at zero, and pan is centered, and ensure that the playback and record levels match on the meters.
Actually, there should be no panning at all. It needs to be a mono track sent to its own output, otherwise you are applying processing and are subject to the particular DAW's panning law.
I don't have Sonar - Stormkloud did the test at his studio in Richmond VA. He didn't seem to be able to avoid the panner.

Does anyone know how to set a track to output an AES channel in Sonar and prevent the audio from going through the panner?

Quote:
So my understanding is that doing this test with Sonar results in the file being slightly softer but still exactly the same in every other respect? So Sonar can apply some sort of math function(lowering the amplitude) and still retain signal integrity?
Yes. As you can see from both the waveform view and the binary file view, all 24 bit samples are identical - it's just that they are all a slightly lower value than the playback file. This means that there are no artifacts, unless you call equal gain on all samples an artifact. If only some of the samples had a different gain, it would be distortion.

BTW, the level change could also have been introduced when he did the export to WAV to get the file out of the box so he could email it to me. I can't see why an export would change the level - but anything is possible.

Quote:
Nice to know I can follow this from my hotel in Beijing, but the connection's a little slow, so I'm mostly just enjoying the read. I think you guys are onto something here. Thanks, Barry, for carrying the torch.
Thanks. The only reason I got away with doing all this over the weekend is because I came down with a cold on Friday afternoon and I was forced to lie around the house - just me and my laptop. Originally, we were going to head down to Seattle (3 hour drive from Vancouver) to take a tour of the famous "Underground City" and possibly the Boeing Plant in Everett.
Old 9th April 2007
  #244
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

No follow up on any of this? Still no example of the difference in hard drive sounds? Where is anybody who is claiming that a DAW played digitally through Radar sounds worse than the same stuff played directly off of Radar? Was this all just some phantom issue?

-R
Old 9th April 2007
  #245
Lives for gear
 
in the red's Avatar
 

well, a few weeks ago, i mixed a project coming in as logic files. "better" is subjective, but the guy from the band who also recorded the stuff and i chose to transfer the stuff into radar rather then playing directly out of logic and using radars conversion. it surely sounded different. we thought it was better.
Old 10th April 2007
  #246
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Lots of anecdote, love to hear a comparative sample.

If I had a Radar here I'd fire up my own test.

Isnt' there anybody out there who has both who could just record a simple comparison?

-R
Old 10th April 2007
  #247
Gear Nut
 
ROBB007's Avatar
 

SOUNDS GREAT*****

I think Radar sounds great and Randy Bachman swears by it I hear........Now Randys not the end all***** But his track record speaks for himself even today...Although I really think Barry should hire me to work for him instead of Colin Wiebe or Erik Rowlett ....Both great guys who also worked for Barry ***Mind you Mark Gordon and
I are better looking*******


ROB BEGG
MARPOLE RECORDING
LANGLEY BC
604-882-7415
Old 10th April 2007
  #248
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
If I had a Radar here I'd fire up my own test.
If you had a RADAR you'd be too bz to be pissing with useless inet comparisonsheh

(j/k with ya btw)
Old 10th April 2007
  #249
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
If you had a RADAR you'd be too bz to be pissing with useless inet comparisonsheh

(j/k with ya btw)
Yeah, I'd be spending a lot more time on edits, that's for sure.

(j/k wichoo 2)

You're right, who really gives a flying fig about all this ****e. I just thought it was sort of an intersting question, academically speaking, and thought it would be nice to have some real evidence to put some teeth into the discussion. Perhaps this thread really died when someone suggested using a computer to compared digital recordings of silence.

No more bumps, promise. Now, how about that Pacifica.

-R
Old 10th April 2007
  #250
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
...Perhaps this thread really died when someone suggested using a computer to compared digital recordings of silence...
R,

You expressed frustration at the subjectiveness of opinions expressed by those who felt that their audio sounded better when played from the RADAR hard drive than when played from the hard drive of a work station. Over the past 15 years, I've seen and heard more subjective banter along those lines than you would care to contemplate. It seemed to me that a good way to remove the subjectivity would be a simple logical comparative test. The reason I picked silence is because it is much easier to detect if something is amiss mathematically if all the data is the same and silence is easy to produce with almost any DAW software. However, mathematically, it makes no difference if it is all zeros, all ones or half and half - it is just easier for non-numbers people to produce all zeros.

As it turned out, some DAWs simply go into mute if the signal is below a certain threshold, so the silence test did not work. Therefore, we went to a non-silence DC test. The only DAW that has been tested so far is Sonar, because that is what one user happened to have, but the test can be done in 5 minutes on any DAW, and there is no subjectivity at all in it - people don't have to argue back and forth about "what they hear" in their own specific listening environment, with their own specific equipment etc. I've been a part of tightly controlled double blind listening tests on a number of occasions where everything is very tightly controlled and in the end, you still get alot of subjectivity.

Of course, my DC test proposal is not 100% conclusive on sound quality, but it does identify potential math errors that might exist in DAW software. When we did the test on Sonar, it clearly lowered the level slightly across the board, and that can easily be mis-interpreted as a change in sound quality - this may shed light on why people are saying that it sounds better off of the RADAR hard drive - which makes some sense, right?
Old 10th April 2007
  #251
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Of course, my DC test proposal is not 100% conclusive on sound quality,
Your DC test says nothing about sound quality. If the numbers are different there is no reason to believe that would affect the sound quality at all, or account for any perceived change.

To me, unless someone actually demonstrates a perceivable audible difference in sound files, then looking at numbers will only tell you if the numbers are the same or different, and nothing about their relationship to audio. As your test with Sonar showed, what looked on paper like a huge difference in numbers, perhaps giving the impression that Sonar somehow destroyed the audio, at further analysis simply was due to the fact that the audio was softer, and perhaps was suffering from a panning algorithm that had not been eliminated from what should have been a controlled test.

Come on, there must be somebody, anybody, with a DAW and Radar who can demonstrate some audible difference.

-R
Old 10th April 2007
  #252
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
...If the numbers are different there is no reason to believe that would affect the sound quality at all, or account for any perceived change...
Now that makes no sense at all. What is the point of having a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) whose Digits are not accurate?
Old 11th April 2007
  #253
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhenderson View Post
Now that makes no sense at all. What is the point of having a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) whose Digits are not accurate?
This is your assertion, and therefore your burden of proof. If you're going to continue to maintain this then you should first of all demonstrate that it's true, and secondly demonstrate that it's audible.

In any case, yours is a disingenuous reply. Neither Radar nor any DAW can reproduce an audio event with complete accuracy, for any number of reasons.

I might just as well ask, what's the point of recording with a 24 bit Radar system if it's converters don't have 144 db headroom?

-R
Old 11th April 2007
  #254
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

I really don't see what's so insincere about Barry's reply. He's saying if digital records and stores the audio in 1's and 0's, it should stay that way. Now, it seems to me that if those changes in the DAW's panning changes the 1's and 0's to something else, that could be what the deal is. I don't know! whatever.

But, I have experienced this sound difference...don't know how to explain it though...don't really care that much. But it is one reason I deal with no recall mixing off of the Radar into a board.
It seems it's all relative anyway.
Just use whatever you're happy with.heh
Old 11th April 2007
  #255
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by indie View Post
Just use whatever you're happy with.heh
Without a doubt, it's about music and joy and whatever gets you there the bestest.

We're just shooting the ****e here, nobody's gonna be changing any working methodology as a result of this discussion.

-R
Old 11th April 2007
  #256
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by indie View Post
I really don't see what's so insincere about Barry's reply. He's saying if digital records and stores the audio in 1's and 0's, it should stay that way. Now, it seems to me that if those changes in the DAW's panning changes the 1's and 0's to something else, that could be what the deal is. I don't know! whatever.
I didn't say "insincere", I said "disingenuous". And really, no offense meant to iZ. I think we're just kidding around now.

Anyhow, in the grand scheme of things, a DAW is supposed to change the numbers. That's the W. which means Workstation.
Old 11th April 2007
  #257
Gear Nut
 
1954U1's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Anyhow, in the grand scheme of things, a DAW is supposed to change the numbers. That's the W. which means Workstation.
Excuse me for continuously posting on this topic, when I've not a Radar and so I can't do the aforementioned test..
But it seems to me a bit unfair to ask bhenderson,
- one time a strict numeric test
- next time to forgot about numbers and/or go with "audible differences"

For now, it seems that Sonar lower signal..
I am interested too in reading some other tests..
Old 11th April 2007
  #258
Gear Nut
 

The difference in levels is an audible difference. The level makes a huge difference in how well the ear can pick up frequencies around the 500-5000 range (re: Fletcher Munson). So, this subtle difference in levels can have a huge impact on how we percieve the quality of playback on a Radar versus a DAW.

Barry, thank you so much for your input on this matter. I appreciate you standing behind your product the way you do.
Old 11th April 2007
  #259
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
I didn't say "insincere", I said "disingenuous". And really, no offense meant to iZ. I think we're just kidding around now.

Anyhow, in the grand scheme of things, a DAW is supposed to change the numbers. That's the W. which means Workstation.
well, "disingenuous" is by definition "insincere".


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
dis·in·gen·u·ous [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
Old 11th April 2007
  #260
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by indie View Post
well, "disingenuous" is by definition "insincere".


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
dis·in·gen·u·ous [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
"Falsely ingenuous" would be how I was using it. I think to call someone insincere is a bit of an insult. To say someone is being disingenuous is more in the realm of fair discourse, and you can still go out and have a beer together afterwards.

-R
Old 13th April 2007
  #261
Gear Nut
 
thestudioguy's Avatar
 

I like my RADAR because...

it makes me pare down my arrangements and micing to 22 tracks, just like tape did. this is nearly always better for the song.

because the converters are so yummy, I can mix out of the console back to tracks 23-24, punching in as I go. this saves me about a grand a channel on automation!

listening to a song is a linear event. RADAR lets you think that way. PT doesn't, 'cause you are temped to get out the digital blade when something is not right.

i hate working with a mouse

bWAV is the bomb. my pals can email me a rough mix and I can import it into a RADAR project and record stuff and ftp it back without having to even think about tech ****. ok, you can do this with PT, but it isn't as much fun.

i like to hit buttons and use the jog wheel.

I don't like paying $600 for a hard drive, tho...
Old 9th September 2013
  #262
Lives for gear
Interested in the new Radar 6.
I am tired of computer issues..

Thoughts on 6?
Old 9th September 2013
  #263
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
"Falsely ingenuous" would be how I was using it. I think to call someone insincere is a bit of an insult. To say someone is being disingenuous is more in the realm of fair discourse, and you can still go out and have a beer together afterwards.

-R
So, in your mind.
Insincere: Purposefully telling lies
Disingenuous: sincerely telling untruths or misleading by bollocks?
Old 9th September 2013
  #264
Lives for gear
 
GearAndGuitars's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
Sounds great, east to use, lets you focus on the music...
lets you mix with your ears, not with your eyes.
Old 9th September 2013
  #265
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty James View Post
Interested in the new Radar 6.
I am tired of computer issues..

Thoughts on 6?
Although I haven't upgraded yet, I like the fact that I can use my analog and digital converter cards from my Radar 4 in the new Radar 6 chassis.
Old 9th September 2013
  #266
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty James View Post
Interested in the new Radar 6.
I am tired of computer issues..

Thoughts on 6?
Do you need a DAW or just a multitrack?
Old 9th September 2013
  #267
Lives for gear
 
tekis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty James View Post
Interested in the new Radar 6.
I am tired of computer issues..

Thoughts on 6?

I've owned 4 Radars over the years (II's and V's). I've never questioned the sound. I miss the workflow from time to time. The Radar 6 looks to be the best yet! I'd like to get an ADA some time soon. Thanks.
Old 9th September 2013
  #268
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty James View Post
Interested in the new Radar 6.
I am tired of computer issues..

Thoughts on 6?
I bought a 48-track Radar-24 back in 2001 or 2002 and it is still going and I use it every day. The Session Controller is just the best control surface I have ever used. You do not really need the meter bridge.

It is the best session tracking system I can think of. I you can operate a tape machine or a cassette recorder, you can operate Radar.

The cost of updates has been minimal (the occasional new HD, new memory and processor and one major upgrade for $150, or thereabouts). Exporting material via LAN is easy, so the Radar integrates well with any DAW you may want to use for editing and overdubs. Latency is 1.2ms and what goes in is what you get coming out.

When I compare the agony that we have had to endure at the hands of other far larger companies, who seem to regard their customers as cows to be milked, our experience with iZ has been exemplary.
Old 9th September 2013
  #269
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it should be remembered that the Radar is a DAW, however it is presented. Just look at the back of the unit and you can see the motherboard connections.

I also don't completely "buy" the best sounding AD/DA bit. Whereas their reputation was built on the fact that the unit was very solid, worked extremely well, and had great sounding conversion, excellent AD and DA convertors are very common these days.

For those looking for a recorder, I would strongly suggest that a full DAW (logic, Pro Tools, Sequioa, Nuendo, take your pick) might be a better buy. Reliable computers with enough processing power and fairly run of the mill. If you need a dedicated recorder, along-side the IZ Radar, I would also suggest looking at the JoCo boxes as well, depending on your requirements, they may be a better alternative.

Obviously, YMMV.
Old 9th September 2013
  #270
Lives for gear
 
chrisrulesmore's Avatar
RADAR is a digital recorder, not a DAW. You don't mix and process tracks directly on a RADAR.

When you say you aren't 'buying it', I'm curious if you have ever actually used the RADAR platform, or any of the other products you mention alongside it.

Not trying to be a jerk, but your post seems extremely uninformed yet pedantic. Not sure why you are comparing a RADAR converter to DAW software programs and computers. What among the many "excellent AD and DA converters" you reference are you comparing to RADAR?

Again, not trying to be a jerk, but if you don't have a clue what you are talking about, probably better not to post, or, at a minimum, qualify your statements as conjecture rather than fact. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it.

Best,
Chris

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it should be remembered that the Radar is a DAW, however it is presented. Just look at the back of the unit and you can see the motherboard connections.

I also don't completely "buy" the best sounding AD/DA bit. Whereas their reputation was built on the fact that the unit was very solid, worked extremely well, and had great sounding conversion, excellent AD and DA convertors are very common these days.

For those looking for a recorder, I would strongly suggest that a full DAW (logic, Pro Tools, Sequioa, Nuendo, take your pick) might be a better buy. Reliable computers with enough processing power and fairly run of the mill. If you need a dedicated recorder, along-side the IZ Radar, I would also suggest looking at the JoCo boxes as well, depending on your requirements, they may be a better alternative.

Obviously, YMMV.
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