The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tonelux/Nicerizer test Dynamics Processors (HW)
Old 10th May 2006
  #181
Lives for gear
 
Mike O's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge
Hey Rick ,the rack is at Vintage King / LA..
let me know if you need contact info
I don't know how many Tonelux racks VK has for evaluation, but they are supposed to have one delivered to me by the 16th. With shipping time it may be out of there soon to get to me.

P.S. Thanks for sharing your insights. Regarding portability I really like the Tonelux too. Build however big a "console" you want (see Jim Messina's). Have a couple of extra Tonelux Vracks to drop select modules in (say the monitor section), add whatever other outboard you want to take, a Radar (in my case) and away you go.
Old 10th May 2006
  #182
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSweetener
Exactly!

I can't believe the wideness of the two analog mixes have only to do with the summing. There must be a difference in panning. I've heard and done some comparison tests and NEVER experienced a difference as HUGE as in this test.

Of course I hear the ifferences in tone and loudness, but as RKrizman said you should really recheck the panning issue!

Thanks for test though!thumbsup

BTW.. I rechecked the panning.. all is well
Old 10th May 2006
  #183
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep
the Weird phase made the other sound wider, c could be made to be like that
A/B was missing a Hole in the center if the Soundstage...
Same as on UBIKs Sum tests , when I first started noticing this,
.... just as Lucey said .... Transients are gone.
You've got to realize that when I mix OTB, I feel I have more room in the soundstage ..not a hole..so I might not pan things so hard left/right as I would in PT[which just sounds muddier,narrowier in general to me] to achieve the same desired "Width"..especially guitars..and the relative volumes might change compared to ITB..

These are just direct comparisons of identical stems through each format,not comparison mixes..
If I had time, I coulld've mixed into each format for a desired result..
all's I can say is the TLX seems to give me the biggest canvas to paint from..width,headroom,depth..and separation.

this is one of the the same debates I saw on Ubiks thread..

Let it rage on without me..

Last edited by RoundBadge; 10th May 2006 at 06:03 AM..
Old 10th May 2006
  #184
Lives for gear
 
mixerguy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge
...... (snip).... width,headroom,depth..and separation...... (snip).....
EXACTLY!

I myself find that good analog summing to have this (width,headroom,depth..and separation) .... more than ITB summing.


Old 10th May 2006
  #185
Gear Head
 
bmcginnis's Avatar
 

tonelux and nicerizer

I played the clips a, b, and c in that order on cheap pooter speakers. When I got to clip C I wiggled my finger in my ear to see if a chunk of wax was suddenly lodged in there.

The difference between nicerizer and tonelux summing is noticable but maybe not as huge as ITB vs. these units.

But tonelux does a lot more with eqs, compressors, aux busses, mic pres, central facilities, etc. than the nicerizer rig; all which adds more to your mixing than the differences between nicerizer and tonelux. If the nicerizer is a mixing time tool, how you gonna rig up your tracking sessions with that portable rack? If you'd need to buy another mixer for tracking, it's probably better to just go for the tonelux.

How about hearing the difference between the same song tracked & mixed in a full tonelux rig (mic pres, eqs, comp, etc.) v.s. just summed by the nicerizer.

There. Now, Feel better about spending the $$. You know you want it.
Old 10th May 2006
  #186
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Still wondering what the D/A's were for this comparison.

-R
Old 10th May 2006
  #187
Just so everyone knows, the test rack had only 2 EQs and they were not used or in the chain. The mix went into the 8) MX2s and out of the summing amps.

I think the test and thread has been useful and is good for a point of reference, but the usefullness has pretty much expired for any additional questioning since Roundbadge has bid it farewell.
Old 10th May 2006
  #188
Lives for gear
 
doug_hti's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Still wondering what the D/A's were for this comparison.

-R
digi 192 (probably clocked to lavry)
Old 10th May 2006
  #189
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux
I think the test and thread has been useful and is good for a point of reference, but the usefullness has pretty much expired for any additional questioning since Roundbadge has bid it farewell.
That's twice now you've tried to pronounced this thread finished. Why not let people judge the usefulness for themselves. As for me, I'd still like to know what D/A's we were listening to.

And I don't think you can call it a test, really, especially since different panning laws were being invoked and the levels weren't tone-matched. But a useful comparison nonetheless.

I'd love to try it for myself, and have a call into Gil. Or should I deal directly with Vintage King?

-R
Old 10th May 2006
  #190
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
And I don't think you can call it a test, really, especially since different panning laws were being invoked and the levels weren't tone-matched. But a useful comparison nonetheless.

i tell ya this much, level-matching on tests such as this are well nigh impossible!

if you get it so the bass energy is roughly equal, the nicer mix sounds may more forward and energetic. if you get it so the mid energy is equal, the tonelux sounds fat and meaty. depending on what your ears like to hear, you can easily skew the results in either direction.

and this doesn't begin to take into account the effects of tranny compression, which itb lacks utterly. i know you know this, i'm just yammering for those who might not have had occasion to ponder this facet of the esoterics.

i've been mastering the last two days, and doing level-matched comparisons of the original mix, my master, and an outsourced master has been an interesting and revealing process, to say the least.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 10th May 2006
  #191
Lives for gear
 
heyman's Avatar
"And I don't think you can call it a test, really, especially since different panning laws were being invoked and the levels weren't tone-matched. But a useful comparison nonetheless."


I dont know about you, but to me panning and volume matching wouldnt have changed my mind in this case.. just something to ponder...

"A" sounded the most pleasing to my ear.. regardless of levels and panning placement.
Old 10th May 2006
  #192
I liked "B" better. More "alive", and clearer, I thought.
Old 10th May 2006
  #193
After a second listen, I retract my first opinion."A" has more depth and is more pleasing. "B" may have a bit more clarity, or because it's thinner, seems a touch more transparent. I don't think "C" is a significant improvement, if any, over "A".
Old 10th May 2006
  #194
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
i tell ya this much, level-matching on tests such as this are well nigh impossible!
Normally you set level with a 1 khz tone. Just to make sure everything is aligned properly. It's amazing how doing that can reduce the differences in comparisons such as this.

-R
Old 10th May 2006
  #195
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

[double post

Last edited by RKrizman; 10th May 2006 at 09:56 PM..
Old 10th May 2006
  #196
Just for the record, after a third listen, I retract my retraction to some extent. Though both have their merits, in the end I think I'd choose the clarity of "B" over "A". Even though I'm an old schooler, one thing I like about the modern sound in general is its clarity, though I'd like it without the harshnes or flatness, which "B" seems to accomplish better than "A".

Thanks for posting this comparison. I'm starting to think the difference is worth the trouble and cost.
Old 10th May 2006
  #197
Lives for gear
 
dave-G's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Normally you set level with a 1 khz tone. Just to make sure everything is aligned properly. It's amazing how doing that can reduce the differences in comparisons such as this.
Bingo.

I'm with you, Rick ... and I think it would be very cool to hear those differences, knowing the comparison was set up to eliminate the other variables.

It would be relatively easy to do, too. With a PT rig, all you'd need is a pair of I/O, signal generator and PAZ meters plugins (set to RMS) ..

For those that agree that in the end, stuff like a Tonelux or Phoenix summing mixer is a gain in that "game of inches", why would you poo-poo the necessity of alignment and knowing you're isolating the differences just to the things these boxes do?? After all, therein lie the inches!!!

-dave
Old 10th May 2006
  #198
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
That's twice now you've tried to pronounced this thread finished.
Only because RoundBadge signed off on it, and it is what it is. Any further testing would have to be done from the ground up by someone else - you perhaps?

Quote:
I'd love to try it for myself, and have a call into Gil. Or should I deal directly with Vintage King?
Well, seeing as right now Vintage King stole (okay, "borrowed") my brand-new demo rack while Paul is building them the one they ordered for themselves, you can call them. It is booked for the 16-20th I believe. I need it back here in New Jersey upon my return from Paris AES, week May 29th. You may certainly evaluate it in between.

And play with this in the interim - http://www.tonelux.com/configulizer.html

-gil
Old 10th May 2006
  #199
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Normally you set level with a 1 khz tone. Just to make sure everything is aligned properly. It's amazing how doing that can reduce the differences in comparisons such as this.

-R
I agree. The fact that nearly everyone picked the tonelux is suspect, IMHO. When comparing two top of the line products such as this, one would expect the results to be more evenly distributed.
Old 10th May 2006
  #200
Gear Maniac
 
Mattsson's Avatar
 

What are you guys talking about?

I compared clip A and clip C back to back on my Genelec speakers...and they sounded almost identical to me. Hard to say wether one is better than the other.

Perhaps if you really want to hear a difference you could.

Cheers,

Rob
Old 10th May 2006
  #201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattsson

I compared clip A and clip C back to back on my Genelec speakers...and they sounded almost identical to me. Hard to say wether one is better than the other.

This is part of the reason people hate Genelec speakers.
Old 10th May 2006
  #202
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethrillfactor
This is part of the reason people hate Genelec speakers.

heh
Old 10th May 2006
  #203
Lives for gear
 
mixerguy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattsson
What are you guys talking about?

I compared clip A and clip C back to back on my Genelec speakers...and they sounded almost identical to me. Hard to say wether one is better than the other.

Perhaps if you really want to hear a difference you could.

Cheers,

Rob

whoah.. dude...... clean yer ears!

Old 11th May 2006
  #204
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000
I agree. The fact that nearly everyone picked the tonelux is suspect, IMHO. When comparing two top of the line products such as this, one would expect the results to be more evenly distributed.

Suspect of?

I VERY intentionally did not see the results of the test (i.e. which files were which). I dropped all three files in Samplitude, closed my eyes and moved the files between tracks for a full minute. Played the tracks back and liked the Tonelux system more, followed by a close 2nd with the N16 and then ITB back in 3rd by a pretty good distance, I would say a $2,500 distance.

To make matters worse for your suspect comment I was on the verge of purchasing an N16, maybe even off of roundbadge so I wanted the N16 to sound better.... It didn't in my book.

Now I know this was not a 100% true double blind test but A was just slightly better in my book. $4,000 better for sonics alone? No but it was better by a hair.
Old 11th May 2006
  #205
Quote:
Originally Posted by GilWave
And play with this in the interim - http://www.tonelux.com/configulizer.html

-gil
This link is way cool Gil!!!! Great great idea.
Old 11th May 2006
  #206
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Normally you set level with a 1 khz tone. Just to make sure everything is aligned properly. It's amazing how doing that can reduce the differences in comparisons such as this.
i agree, that's good practice for setting the levels going into the boxes.

what i'm talking about is level matching the resulting mixes, such as the ones that were posted here. that's not such a simple affair, and depending on which zone of energy you focus on, you can unwittingly give an edge to either mix.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 11th May 2006
  #207
I wish I had that configulizer for my Doepfer.
really good Idea thumbsup
I made the same of .tiff snippets, to drop into a rastered drawing file.
it is not the same, but I had to solve the puzzle that way.
my flash skills could be a lot better...

Last edited by Reptil; 11th May 2006 at 01:06 AM..
Old 11th May 2006
  #208
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new
Suspect of?

I VERY intentionally did not see the results of the test (i.e. which files were which). I dropped all three files in Samplitude, closed my eyes and moved the files between tracks for a full minute. Played the tracks back and liked the Tonelux system more, followed by a close 2nd with the N16 and then ITB back in 3rd by a pretty good distance, I would say a $2,500 distance.

To make matters worse for your suspect comment I was on the verge of purchasing an N16, maybe even off of roundbadge so I wanted the N16 to sound better.... It didn't in my book.

Now I know this was not a 100% true double blind test but A was just slightly better in my book. $4,000 better for sonics alone? No but it was better by a hair.
Don't confuse the word suspect with suspicious - i'm not suggesting anything was done intentionally to mislead us. Roundbadge himself said that he didn't calibrate anything prior to printing the mixes, so the results of this exercise are interesting but they are by no means proof of anything. If you are comfortable spending $4000 based on results that were "slightly better...by a hair" when that difference could very easily be attributed to a level difference, then by all means go ahead.
Old 11th May 2006
  #209
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000
Don't confuse the word suspect with suspicious - i'm not suggesting anything was done intentionally to mislead us. Roundbadge himself said that he didn't calibrate anything prior to printing the mixes, so the results of this exercise are interesting but they are by no means proof of anything. If you are comfortable spending $4000 based on results that were "slightly better...by a hair" when that difference could very easily be attributed to a level difference, then by all means go ahead.

The fact that anyone is considering spending any money without trying these boxes themselves based on 3 "thrown together" examples is suspect.
Old 11th May 2006
  #210
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
I took the d-sub from one box's output and switched to the other d-sub
as I stated in the first post ..
simple comparison.no science thats all
take it for what it is.. ..with the PTitb as an after thought ..
I really wish i had more time to play with this stuff and really get tweaky but i don't ..
if I've sparked some interest one way or the other..then maybe more guys will pick up the ball and do some demoing for themselvesthumbsup
well thats what this forum is kinda all about,isn't it?.
i'd be happy to get together with some guys and do some more comparison files later on.
I look forward to hearing others opinions when they take the time for they're own tests or whatever ..
I don't usaully make it a habit of buying gear soley based on the stuff I read here[with the exception of the Germaniums! ],But it sure can help give me some ideas/direction of stuff I might wanna try out.

The Tonelux stuff is gonna work just fine for me

Last edited by RoundBadge; 11th May 2006 at 02:56 AM..
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
jayjay / High end
11

Forum Jump
Forum Jump