The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
"Resolution" magazine profiles Plush
Old 27th February 2016
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Bruce Watson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
It is most discourteous to bait me here on my own thread.
It's not discourteous to enter into a public conversation that someone else started. And no one is baiting you. I'm sorry if you feel that way.

All I wanted to do is understand your statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
...the sound of ethernet connected conversion was "atomized," and then re-combined with a result less good than available with other techniques.
At this point you've made it clear that you aren't going to explain it. Fine. So be it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
The insults and guessing don't belong here.
I agree. And that includes guessing about Ethernet.
Old 28th February 2016
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
No---that is not the test. The test is comparing the converters to the analog feed.

I am not comparing AES to Ravenna. I am comparing converters to an unprocessed direct analog monitor path. that's how I decided to inspect the quality level of the conversion.

Then I can judge which is better and closer to the analog.

It is about assigning distinct levels of sound quality to various converter chains.
Old 28th February 2016
  #63
I'm just bummed I missed the classified for the Hapi.

Last edited by avillalta; 28th February 2016 at 12:29 AM.. Reason: reading is fundemental
Old 28th February 2016
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
for complaining recital recordists:
Attached Thumbnails
"Resolution" magazine profiles Plush-stockhausen_tapes.jpg  
Old 28th February 2016
  #65
Gear Maniac
 

Yes, I understand. And I agree, an analog feed DOES sound different, to a degree, than the digital converted stream back to an analog signal. That's why I asked the question; what format and rate(s) did you use in the converter side of your test comparison to the analog feed?

The object of recording music of course is to record, and there are a finite number of processes to accomplish that. For me, it's a digital process, and I find 256fs DSD the most transparent, the most like the incoming analog feed.

Last edited by tailspn; 28th February 2016 at 02:46 AM..
Old 29th February 2016
  #66
Gear Nut
 

Hudson, If using RAVENNA "atomizes" the sound, did you test the Hapi, feeding it AES, to actually prove this?
Dennis
Old 1st March 2016
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
No I didn't do that test, Dennis. I only proceeded to complete my converter vs. analog monitor path test. Then I sold my HAPI.

I'll use my Pyramix for pcm and also for editing dsd from the Tascam machine. I can mix down to the Tascam 3000 and then load Pmix from the memory card.

I have many different converters here such as dCS, DAD, Prism, Mytek etc.
I have just decided not to work with Ethernet systems.
Old 1st March 2016
  #68
Lives for gear
I'd tell you all a joke about UDP, but I'm not sure you'd get it...
Old 2nd March 2016
  #69
Lives for gear
 
DSD_Mastering's Avatar
I've use/used the DAD AX24, Grimm AD1, EMM Labs ADC8IV, MSB Platinum, Genex 9048/GX-8, Weiss AD2, Ayre QA-9, Horus and Hapi. I use the Horus because it's the truest to the source, that being tape/vinyl.

I've also used Ravenna, Dante, ST/SC-optical for MADI, AES/EBU, USB and older formats. Ethernet is what I use. No "atomization" here. No laws of physics broken here. Ethernet cables costing $1k sound the same as $6 generic cables. That's how strong the protocol is.

Grundman must be drinking the same Kool-Aid... !!
Old 2nd March 2016
  #70
Gear Maniac
 
PuebloAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
I'm willing to be persuaded that you, and he, are right. First, what does "atomized" mean in this context? Second, what kind of testing was done to come to this conclusion? #41 above.
Dear Bruce,

Thank you for keeping an open mind. First, let me assure you I am not trying to persuade you of anything. I am only collaterally involved here. Regardless, it appears from the various, accumulating reactions that some level of miscommunication is in effect. Let me set the record straight…

Regarding the seemingly offensive word "atomized". Plush has borrowed this adjective from me, which I used in describing to him my 3+ years of continuing experience with the product in question. The word is not being used as a technical term. It is simply a personal adjective which described a perceived impression of audio passing through said system. Plush's own trials, with his very own purchased unit, led him to the same conclusion. He did explain what "atomized" meant to him in post #46 . If that explanation was not sufficient to help grok his meaning then I suggest borrowing, renting or buying one to determine whether you feel that adjective is fitting. Every poster here has bantered words like "bright, dark, thin, fat, wide, narrow, deep, edgy, smooth, focussed, smeared, grainy". Not one of those adjectives accurately describe physical properties of sound yet no one is throwing down the penalty flag on them! Please consider "atomized" as a similarly flawed adjective; dancing about architecture.

Next, that AoIP is being blamed for rejecting the product in question is not correct. Regardless of what previous, loose typing might have conveyed, let it now be clear that I refer to the integrated hardware/software system as a whole. The Whole. It is hardly pragmatic to dissect such a system. Consider: 1or2 switching power supplies, 24+ channels of high-gain amplification plus adc/dacs, multiple audio/system/transmission clocks, lcd screen, on board DSP, drivers and server/client layers -- all under a single 2U hood! The population density of that metropolis is beyond BEYOND. Determining the effect of a single stage, group of stages or their interactions would require Herculean analysis. No, it is simply that the ethernet function happens to be the most conspicuous characteristic; making it an easy/lazy mark of distinction from other solutions. We should be able to move past this now.

Lastly, the demand for nobel worthy testing. Being a pedigreed engineer three times over, I am by education, training and experience compelled to to conduct such tests. 72 hour acclimatization, contemporaneous transfers, 0.01dB level matching, double-blind comparisons amongst a number of critical listeners, hash verification, etc. Evaluate the test itself for errors and run again. This is weeks of work for one answer and results look good on paper. But I am not just a tech-head. I am also (like most readers here) an artisan who helps craft real music products for a very real public. Along that line it follows that empirical use under prolonged commercial conditions is also important. Is a body of work created with device X more or less satisfactory than device Y under the same general conditions? Is the work consistently accepted by successful artists, producers, labels, broadcasters, etc? Does the work achieve critical and/or commercial goals? Has the public embraced the work? All these things should be looked at together. It is the few who recognize the value of such R&D. In contrast, third parties waste time attacking or simply ignore the results to continue on the course they were originally set upon. My experience has been 99% of the time valid data does not sway or convince anybody. Now I save my breath for more productive activities.

I say again, not trying to persuade you of anything. Plush had shared some experiences and decisions based on months of practical use. You may or may not value that input. Ultimately he (and I) chose a different solution. Big deal. There are plenty of folks here who are content with the product. Nuke it out for yourself. After all, that is what being an ENGINEER is all about.
Old 2nd March 2016
  #71
Being an engineer is about understanding the relationship between objective science and real-world result, and employing techniques based on that study. This is, understandably, a bit more difficult to quantize in a subjective arena such as audio recording, but nonetheless, the need for at least a pursuit of scientific explanation cannot be ignored if one is to consider themselves an engineer, and not simply a "sound designer" or "sound guy".

We are not medicine men, wandering around the prairie with magical tonics, are we?
Old 2nd March 2016
  #72
Lives for gear
 

Thanks to Scott for making clear there's not a hint of evidence for AES67 being something to blame for bad sound or degradation of any form.
Old 2nd March 2016
  #73
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PuebloAudio View Post
It is simply a personal adjective which described a perceived impression of audio passing through said system.
Hi Scott,

If you didn't know ethernet was involved and didn't know it all fitted in a 2RU box, would it still have sounded atomized?
Old 2nd March 2016
  #74
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PuebloAudio View Post
Every poster here has bantered words like "bright, dark, thin, fat, wide, narrow, deep, edgy, smooth, focussed, smeared, grainy". Not one of those adjectives accurately describe physical properties of sound yet no one is throwing down the penalty flag on them! Please consider "atomized" as a similarly flawed adjective; dancing about architecture.
Nobody claims that the (more or less) established terms you mention to describe the subjective sound of a device or system is 100% when it comes to precision. However it's still good to have words to describe what we hear, or what we think we hear.

As a matter of fact those very words (most of them) can very well describe actual physical properties and differences.

Going from there to use the new word "atomized" on a public forum, describing flaws of a digital format based on flawed testing and understanding of technology is something else.

Quote:
No, it is simply that the ethernet function happens to be the most conspicuous characteristic; making it an easy/lazy mark of distinction from other solutions. We should be able to move past this now.
What on earth makes you come to that conclusion when there is so many other parts and subsystems in this device? We know (you as well I assume) that many/most converters have sonic fingerprints no matter if you bring the signal out on a digital feed or not. Blaming AES67 makes no sense at all.

Quote:
I say again, not trying to persuade you of anything. Plush had shared some experiences and decisions based on months of practical use. You may or may not value that input. Ultimately he (and I) chose a different solution. Big deal. There are plenty of folks here who are content with the product. Nuke it out for yourself. After all, that is what being an ENGINEER is all about.
This is not the point. It's the (judging by the fact we have at hand) flawed conclusion we are talking about.

Last edited by Audiop; 2nd March 2016 at 03:39 PM..
Old 2nd March 2016
  #75
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I'll use my Pyramix for pcm and also for editing dsd from the Tascam machine. I can mix down to the Tascam 3000 and then load Pmix from the memory card.

I have many different converters here such as dCS, DAD, Prism, Mytek etc.
I have just decided not to work with Ethernet systems.
Hello Plush,

Just curious as to what converters you are using with Pyramix to edit DSD. I see you mentioned dCS- a studio where I used to work had that converter and we would occasionally do DSD transfers from analog tape using that box and a (previous generation) Tascam machine. Sounded great, but as far as I know, there's no easy way to hook it up to a computer (for DSD, at least; we used it for PCM over AES.) Do the Mytek boxes allow DSD editing through Pyramix over USB?
Old 2nd March 2016
  #76
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
For hand wringers: Atomized, bitch.
It came from Hollywood.

Ditched.
Old 2nd March 2016
  #77
Gear Nut
 

Just so I have everything correct, neither Scott or Hudson tested the Hapi feeding it AES instead of RAVENNA? I have no problem with either of you not liking how the Hapi sounds, I just wanted to make sure your statements were factually based.
Dennis
Old 2nd March 2016
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Hello Dennis,

No I never did that test feeding the HAPI from AES.

If I fed it from an AES output that would mean that the signal had already been converted by a different a/d converter. This would not fulfill my goal of testing the conversion of the HAPI.
Old 2nd March 2016
  #79
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I will have no more comment on the subject of Ravenna recording systems.

And no I will not answer any more questions about it. Do your own tests.
Old 2nd March 2016
  #80
Lives for gear
 
just.sounds's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Greetings, Playa

An update for you.

HAPI has been moved out in favor of DAD and Prism Atlas converters. I simply liked the sound of the traditional converters without the nonsense of the ethernet connections. I was advised by Scott Sedillo from Pueblo Audio and Bernie Grundman mastering, that the sound of ethernet connected conversion was "atomized," and then re-combined with a result less good than available with other techniques. After listening tests confirmed his advice, a move was made.

I use DAD, Prism, and RME Micstasy as multi-track mic amps / ad converters.
This goes in to a multi-track via MADI. Mytek is stereo conversion on some projects.
Very nice choices you have there! My system is somewhat more simplistic just
32channels of crookkwood multipre straight into my pc over madi. I like to have the peace of my own control room to mix after recording on location. And all the different combinations maybe when i can afford it to take the time to make all those choices. For now i'm a happy camper and fellow quantec afficionado . You USA guys should buy them because the prices are steaming hot because of the exchange rates. And maybe Schoeps also?
Old 3rd March 2016
  #81
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
HAPI has been moved out in favor of DAD and Prism Atlas converters. I simply liked the sound of the traditional converters without the nonsense of the ethernet connections. I was advised by Scott Sedillo from Pueblo Audio and Bernie Grundman mastering, that the sound of ethernet connected conversion was "atomized," and then re-combined with a result less good than available with other techniques. After listening tests confirmed his advice, a move was made.
Old 3rd March 2016
  #82
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
Yup, that's how Bill Nye explains the Ethernet. And it is smaller at the other end. Good move.
Old 9th March 2016
  #83
Gear Head
Hello,
Yesterday I recorded a short flutesample. two schöps mk4 into hapi one sample via ravenna to laptop daw and the other via hapi aes out to rme pcie aes32.

Can be dowloaded here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0hiqu9py...1zE2YbW_a?dl=0

On request I can feed the Inputs with a full orchestra sample from cd...


Erich
Old 9th March 2016
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Hi Eric
I listened to the 2 files on my computer speakers and heard a difference. The first one sounded smoother and sweeter and for a better term more musical, while the second was a bit cooler, drier and maybe more clinical. I think the first is my preference.
Old 10th March 2016
  #85
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
FLEA 12 has landed. New production paid for it.

Thank you, FLEA.
Old 28th March 2016
  #86
Quote:
Originally Posted by etiefenthaler View Post
Hello,
Yesterday I recorded a short flutesample. two schöps mk4 into hapi one sample via ravenna to laptop daw and the other via hapi aes out to rme pcie aes32.

Can be dowloaded here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0hiqu9py...1zE2YbW_a?dl=0

On request I can feed the Inputs with a full orchestra sample from cd...


Erich
Thanks for the samples, these are helpful. Did you record at 44.1k? Perhaps some 96k or 192k samples would be even more illustrative.
Old 30th March 2016
  #87
Gear Head
Uploaded four additional Samples 96k.

Erich
Old 26th June 2019
  #88
Quote:
Originally Posted by king2070lplaya View Post
Being an engineer is about understanding the relationship between objective science and real-world result, and employing techniques based on that study. This is, understandably, a bit more difficult to quantize in a subjective arena such as audio recording, but nonetheless, the need for at least a pursuit of scientific explanation cannot be ignored if one is to consider themselves an engineer, and not simply a "sound designer" or "sound guy".

We are not medicine men, wandering around the prairie with magical tonics, are we?
One instinctively knows when a thing is right, and who is going to dissuade you of that instinct?
Old 26th June 2019
  #89
Critics? Clients? My own gnawing self doubt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Poulton View Post
One instinctively knows when a thing is right, and who is going to dissuade you of that instinct?
Old 26th June 2019
  #90
I must say, I have never doubted my own ears, although I have sometimes found the solution to achieving what my ears desire, to be - let's say, elusive!
Topic:
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