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
A little 002/Radar comparison...
Old 29th April 2005
  #1
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

A little 002/Radar comparison...

Well, I thought I'd tell whoever's interested about a comparison I did with my 002 and my Radar24. The other day we were working on a song recorded to the Radar24 (like we always do) that had only 12 trks, so I thought I'd transfer it to the 002 and listen back through the Radar's converters. Clocked via spdf from the Radar back through 2 channels of the Radar...panned as close to my board's panning as possible.
All faders on my Midas board at zero (including the 2 channels that the 002 we're coming up on) and all faders in ProTools at zero.
Bottom line, the bottom end in Protools -around 60hz and below I'm guessing- was gone coming off the 002 via Radar's converters. Played the same song on the Radar and there's the bottom! Now I know mixerman said this and I always believed it because I love my Radar...but hearing is believing.
Micah
Old 29th April 2005
  #2
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

I believe that you just proved that the Midas Console has a better summing bus than Pro Tools.

Is that what you think you did?
Old 29th April 2005
  #3
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

I don't think he proved anything. He's simply comparing a mix on a Midas versus a similar digital mix and finds that the analog mix is bassier sounding. What a surprise.

-R
Old 29th April 2005
  #4
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
I don't think he proved anything. He's simply comparing a mix on a Midas versus a similar digital mix and finds that the analog mix is bassier sounding. What a surprise.

-R

wrong. the levels were at zero on all faders...I don't think it possible for the mix to be "bassier"coming up on the same board.



As far as the mix buss question, I definitely agree that the midas has a better mix buss. But my thought on this non-scientific experiment, was that there were only 12 trks so the protools mixbuss may not get overloaded. I definitely could be wrong about that. What I was hearing was the bass response just not happening on the tracks coming off ProTools. NO change in levels from the trks being played off of PT compared to the trks being played off of Radar.
Just a little test I thought I'd do at the last minute.
Micah
Old 29th April 2005
  #5
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by indie
wrong. the levels were at zero on all faders...I don't think it possible for the mix to be "bassier"coming up on the same board.



As far as the mix buss question, I definitely agree that the midas has a better mix buss. But my thought on this non-scientific experiment, was that there were only 12 trks so the protools mixbuss may not get overloaded. I definitely could be wrong about that. What I was hearing was the bass response just not happening on the tracks coming off ProTools. NO change in levels from the trks being played off of PT compared to the trks being played off of Radar.
Just a little test I thought I'd do at the last minute.
Micah
I also find it interesting that you would notice such a difference with only 12 tracks.

Although with my recent discovery of the Folcrom, I'm not surprised.

Good on ya.
Old 29th April 2005
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
So now not only have you spent money on an 002 that doesn't really work very well with other software. You've forced yourself to use Digi's crappy, budget level software as well.
Only to find out that their stuff sounds like ass, as alot of have been saying for years.
Old 29th April 2005
  #7
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Cool beans.....but.....


Let's not forget that when mixerman was pressed to "show us the money" with his test, that he came up short. I'm not saying I doubt his results, but it was kind of interesting that they never materialized.
Old 29th April 2005
  #8
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher
I also find it interesting that you would notice such a difference with only 12 tracks.

Although with my recent discovery of the Folcrom, I'm not surprised.

Good on ya.
I don't understand why some people have low end problems with Protools. With my HD system I get such (in fact needlessly) extended low end that my whole studio floor can rattle like a subwoofer. On the occasion when I run the tracks to analog tape and back, or through a Dangerous 2-bus, or through my recently departed Trident console, the bottom end, if anything, actually tightens up a bit. Often in a very nice way. Other times, like with Ampex 456, it might widen and get bulkier and maybe a little woolier. In general I'd have to say I prefer the kiss of analog to my tracks at some point. Mixing in Protools I'm always fighting to get rid of all the excessive low end or reshape it so that it doesn't mask upper frequency stuff.

If you enjoy the sound of your Midas board that's great, but it doesn't mean that your software is somehow changing the ones and zeros to give you less bass. If you think it's a headroom problem, as you suggested, then lower all your faders and see if the bass returns. Solo tracks and see if they suddenly get more bass. If you really want to make an issue out of it on a public forum you should do a more controlled comparison. If you just want to say, however, that you like one more than the other, for whatever reason, then by all means.

BTW Kenny, have you tried the Folcrom yet with any clean preamps?

-R
Old 29th April 2005
  #9
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3
Cool beans.....but.....


Let's not forget that when mixerman was pressed to "show us the money" with his test, that he came up short. I'm not saying I doubt his results, but it was kind of interesting that they never materialized.
It's one thing to observe a phenomenon, it's another to come up with a cogent explanation for it.

-R
Old 29th April 2005
  #10
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

So you say 60hz and below was GONE? You might have a bad cable or some phase issues somewhere.... I've heard Radar converters and while I don't dispute they are better than the 002, I don't think it is that great of a difference.
Old 29th April 2005
  #11
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
If you enjoy the sound of your Midas board that's great, but it doesn't mean that your software is somehow changing the ones and zeros to give you less bass. If you think it's a headroom problem, as you suggested, then lower all your faders and see if the bass returns. Solo tracks and see if they suddenly get more bass. If you really want to make an issue out of it on a public forum you should do a more controlled comparison. If you just want to say, however, that you like one more than the other, for whatever reason, then by all means.
-R
I have trouble believing that you've tried a summing mixer and not heard something amazingly better and bigger in the low end. I didn't need to even try to evaluate scientifically. When you work on a record for 2 months ITB, you start to realize what you can do with it their. As soon as I plugged in the Folcrom, I knew it made no sense to try it ITB again. YMMV

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
BTW Kenny, have you tried the Folcrom yet with any clean preamps?
-R
I haven't got hold of any yet. Thanks.
Old 29th April 2005
  #12
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher
I have trouble believing that you've tried a summing mixer and not heard something amazingly better and bigger in the low end. I didn't need to even try to evaluate scientifically. When you work on a record for 2 months ITB, you start to realize what you can do with it their. As soon as I plugged in the Folcrom, I knew it made no sense to try it ITB again. YMMV
Believe it. And I've posted comparisons as well and analyzed the low end. I was truly hoping for the magic bullet, and really, if it did what I hoped it would do, I'd still have the damn thing.

I think the theory is screwed up. I believe that if you create a perfectly transparent, straight-wire-with-gain analog mixer it will sound pretty much like a DAW (let's avoid brand names for civility's sake), and that in fact accurate (that's accurate, not euphonic or beautiful or punchy) summing is one thing that a DAW does really well. Of course, that's rarely what anybody wants, expecially in the rock n roll end of the business. When I still had my Trident 24 I was often unhappy with the boxy sounding mixes. So I tried running tape through the channel inputs, then directly out of those into the DAW for the summing. Worked great. It kept the sonic charm of the Trident but gave a clearer representation of it using the DAW's more accurate summing.

So this week I revived my JH-24 and have been bouncing tracks from the DAW to 456 and back. Now there's a difference you can hear. I can't wait to get to the studio every day to see if stuff still sounds as good as I remember it from yesterday (it does!). You can just keep using the same piece of tape over and over. The ITB mixes sound nothing like what you'd expect. I feel like Dorothy--I had the ruby slippers all the while.

So I'd love to try a Folcrom, and perhaps a Mixdream. I'm guessing that the best summing mixers will be the ones that add some mojo of their own. Are you using 192's to feed the Folcrom?

-R
Old 29th April 2005
  #13
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman
So now not only have you spent money on an 002 that doesn't really work very well with other software. You've forced yourself to use Digi's crappy, budget level software as well.
Only to find out that their stuff sounds like ass, as alot of have been saying for years.
Henchman...I've known Protools sounds like ass for years as well. I've owned the Radar24 for 2 1/2 yrs, and the 002 for 6 months. The reason for me buying the 002 is to learn Protools software so I can go into a studio and know what the freak is going on. So your condescending attitude is unwarranted.
Old 29th April 2005
  #14
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont
So you say 60hz and below was GONE? You might have a bad cable or some phase issues somewhere.... I've heard Radar converters and while I don't dispute they are better than the 002, I don't think it is that great of a difference.
Hey Tony,
Yeah I checked the cables etc. But I agree that it's not just the converters. In my mind it has to be something about playing the same trks off the Radar with the stability of its own clock etc. I really don't know and I'm not trying to say I do. It's just something that I REALLY heard. Who knows, it's amazing how polarizing the Protools "sound" subject is.
Old 29th April 2005
  #15
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
I don't understand why some people have low end problems with Protools. With my HD system I get such (in fact needlessly) extended low end that my whole studio floor can rattle like a subwoofer.
-R
You know, I just had a buddy of mine mix a record for me in HD-then dumped to 1/2 inch and it sounds really good. He obviously is just a great mixer and it doesn't matter quite as much with him. On the same record I mixed one song off the Radar via Midas that I like the bottom end better on, but that's my opinion. Not sure if it's an LE software deal or what...but the "phenomenon" was there in my experiment.
Micah
Old 29th April 2005
  #16
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

I also thought it was a difference of Mojo vs. actual quality summing until I tried it.

I haven't tried the Dangerous 2 buss and it seems you haven't tried the Folcrom, so they may be very different beasts.

I did have a Sony MCI JH24 with my pro tools rig (I had to give it back to it's owner) so I know what a difference tape makes. I definitely prefer it. But I think the Folcrom was more dramatic than tape. Although both would be optimal.

I know it’s not just a difference in color, because I put up a Pop Project (Averill Lavigne or Ashlee Simpson type) and the seperation was much better with the Folcrom their too. And I didn’t find one pre that I owned to have the right color for Pop. But they all still sounded better than ITB. Even though ITB had a better color for that record.

That’s why I’m searching out a clean pre to try.

And if it was just color, I would have hated some pre’s while liking others.

I own Neve, API and Chandler TG-2.

Each one sounded quite different but they all sounded on a different planet from ITB.

BTW - I’m using a Digi 192 I/O and an 888/24 hooked up to the legacy port.

I found no difference between putting sounds out of either. It all sounded better to me.
Old 29th April 2005
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher
That’s why I’m searching out a clean pre to try.
Quite a few people liked the Cranesong Flamingo...most notable Shipley. I'll throw in the A-Designs MP2 in there as well. Adds nice depth and size to the low end and sparkle to the hi end on a mix YMMV. I don't have personal experience with the Flamingo
Old 30th April 2005
  #18
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

The A Designs is SWEET.
Old 30th April 2005
  #19
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher

I haven't tried the Dangerous 2 buss and it seems you haven't tried the Folcrom, so they may be very different beasts.

I did have a Sony MCI JH24 with my pro tools rig (I had to give it back to it's owner) so I know what a difference tape makes. I definitely prefer it. But I think the Folcrom was more dramatic than tape. Although both would be optimal.
I believe that's what you're hearing, and I expected the same sort of dramatic thing with the box I tried. I mean, going to tape and back ain't subtle! And in fact, it's easy, because afterwards I can then mix ITB like usual, with all the automation and repeatability and running my outboard effects on PREFADER inserts like sane people do.

In any case, in spite of desperately trying to make it all happen inside, I think we both agree that mixing ITB can lack a certain something. I'm going to have to try a Folcrom--I'm guessing it would work fine with my Averill 312's or the DRS-2.

Hey, I even thought about getting a Midas at one point, but my experiences with other mid to low level boards (Soundcraft, Trident, Mackie) have always ultimately left me wanting.

-R
Old 30th April 2005
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Ziggy!!'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher
I have trouble believing that you've tried a summing mixer and not heard something amazingly better and bigger in the low end. I didn't need to even try to evaluate scientifically. When you work on a record for 2 months ITB, you start to realize what you can do with it their. As soon as I plugged in the Folcrom, I knew it made no sense to try it ITB again. YMMV


There are a lot of people who think Summing boxes are a load of sh*t... who don't hear any differences...

I'm not one of them, I beleive analog summing makes a difference but its not some miracle wonder box people make it out as... I see it in a similar light as to why there are different flavour preamps...
Old 30th April 2005
  #21
Lives for gear
 

In my opinion, the Folcrom/Buzz Audio MA2.2 made ALL the difference. I haven't tried the D2B, so I can't comment. Mixing ITB had a sound, but I wasn't very fond of it. My primary concerning with mixing ITB was the lack of air surrounding the mix. I found that mixing ITB lacked depth of field, and width, something I've brought up before.

Mixing with the Folcrom/Buzz Audio MA.2.2TX (my preferred mic-pre, but you can use a high end mic-pre of your choice), the ITB mix I was working on sounded much warmer, with the depth of field you get when mixing on an SSL analog console. Stemming to the Folcrom via the 192 is definately better than mixing ITB. If you can rent, purchase the Folcrom (mic-pre), do it! You'll be very happy you did.

Also, keep in mind that the idea is to keep the chain as analog as possible. I recently purchased the Tascam DV-RA1000 DSD recorder, so coming out analog from the Folcrom/Buzz to the Tascam sounds fantastic. So when I'm ready to make a PCM conversion mix, I send the analog out from the Tascam to the Lavry 4496 A/D. I'm lovin' it!!!
Old 30th April 2005
  #22
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

The fact that the Folcrom sounds so different with each pre is very interesting to me.

Especially since no manufacturer really designs their pre for this purpose.

I'm considering having a Folcrom party. Here in NYC.

Maybe get a dozen or so Gearslutz to come to my studio and try out different pre's with this box.

It could let non-believers have a chance to try this box.

And it could let people like me hear lots of different pre's with it.

I would only require that you bring at least one mic pre that I don't have, and at least one song of your own to test it out on. (You don't want to hear just my music)

I have Neve, API and Chandler TG-2.

I'm using Pro Tools but any group of Aiff files could do. Just print your plugins.

Anyone interested?
Old 30th April 2005
  #23
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Hey Kenny,

You might want to try to find an used Great River MP2. The white ones are very clean and beautiful. You can find them used every once in a while for 1000-1200. I don't use a summing box (or DAW) but I know the GR is a wonderful sounding pre...
Old 30th April 2005
  #24
I agree with Imagine, the Buzz Audio 2.2 is probably the best mic pre with the Folcrom that i've heard.

I haven't heard many, but it worked better than all of the "Neve-alikes" out there.
Old 30th April 2005
  #25
Lives for gear
 
rolo's Avatar
 

henchman needs an oil change

well.. maybe a 002 or mbox will not sound like a radar or a good studer, but i have an HD3 accel digi system. i do not have any problems with the sound quality, if fact, i think it's the best digital system on the market (for many reasons), yes i do own a studer tape mach. yes, i love it... do i use it? not much anymore. has my hd3 with 4 192 i/o's paid for itself.... many times over. evidently... henchman has not had personal experience (over a decent period of time with a real digi system). and by the way... you can now use pro tools LE with m-audio interfaces. so it is NO LONGER a closed ended system. bloody mary's anyone?
Old 30th April 2005
  #26
Lives for gear
 
zimv20's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rolo
you can now use pro tools LE with m-audio interfaces. so it is NO LONGER a closed ended system.
even though digi owns m-audio? i'm disputing your assertion.
Old 30th April 2005
  #27
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rolo
well.. maybe a 002 or mbox will not sound like a radar or a good studer, but i have an HD3 accel digi system. i do not have any problems with the sound quality, if fact, i think it's the best digital system on the market (for many reasons), yes i do own a studer tape mach. yes, i love it... do i use it? not much anymore. has my hd3 with 4 192 i/o's paid for itself.... many times over. evidently... henchman has not had personal experience (over a decent period of time with a real digi system). and by the way... you can now use pro tools LE with m-audio interfaces. so it is NO LONGER a closed ended system. bloody mary's anyone?
I think what Henchman is referring to is the sound of the Mix Buss.

And judging by the fact that you have 4 192's, you might be doubting it too.
Old 30th April 2005
  #28
Lives for gear
 
rolo's Avatar
 

OK

up until recently pro tools software only operated with digi interfaces. now m-audio interfaces can use pro tools software... think of all the people who currently own the firewire 410, ozonic, firewire1814, and audiophile 192 interfaces... they can now use pro tools (if they desired). this to me and to those users, opens the world of p.t. without purchasing a 002/mbox. as far as plug ins... p.t. LE can use native plugs from waves, and almost all other plug in manufactures operate in RTAS (PT). as far as file exchange from other daw's pt can import and export to all the major formats (wav, aiff, sdii) . now i ask you... how do you see pro tools being a closed ended system?
Old 30th April 2005
  #29
Lives for gear
 
rolo's Avatar
 

response to produceher

yup... got the mix bus thing, my response was directly on his crash of a completly workable system. a good engineer can make a great sounding recording and mix out of anything. i just happend to be able to have an hd3 system and love the sound. FYI.... CAKE's new CD was tracked and mixed all with a digi001.. take a listen... it sounds GREAT!!!!! so much for a "bad" mix bus.
Old 30th April 2005
  #30
Lives for gear
 
zimv20's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rolo
now i ask you... how do you see pro tools being a closed ended system?
i'll agree that PTLE is more open that it was, but it's not open. why? because you're limited to the hardware that digi allows. and it's not even a "this has been tested with" allowance, they build their code so it works with only approved devices.

btw, i'm only talking about hardware, not OMF, AIFF, or plug-ins.
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
noequipment / High End
13
Lance Hayden / High End
14
xaos / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
philip / High End
21
blaugruen7 / Geekslutz Forum
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump