Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: What Lynn learned from all this

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    100
    Originally posted by Kevin Perry:
    <STRONG>

    Ah yes, I remember that post now! Okay that makes 3 (who could tell the difference) ...

    I heard the same low level "ambience loss" that your talking about in the soft sections. This probably bothered me the most on the PT mix...more than the top end.</STRONG>

    I just got this Pt/Neve CD and listened at work on a Walkman with Sony 7506 headphones and heard the differences loud and clear in 2 passes. Then brought it home and listened through Dynaudio BM6a's and HDR824, and it was even more clear.

    Not to blow my own horn, I don't think I'm special. I'm just concerned with the low standard of listening out there. When people say that they don't hear the differences, or that they like PT better for it's 'clarity' and 'forwardness' I'm very concerned about the future of "high quality audio".

    Mp3s and commercials on TV done in PT are making us deaf and no one seems to care since it is so convenient to go deaf. There is a flatness to PT that I'd call flat, not forward in a good way. Everything PT sounds like a TV commercial. There is a nasty 3rd harmonic smear in the mids/top plus the thin bottom end to PT that I would call 'low quality' not 'clarity'.

    Record 4 preamps to tape with a vocal or acoustic guitar, then dump them to PT and listen. They all start to sounds the same. So if you are all PT, why bother with lots of pre amps? Just get a couple and model the sounds internally. The real benifits of great mics and pres recorded rightly is in the analog world, once it goes digi it's WAY diminished. Then if you 'normalize' the tracks it goes away even more, almost all gone is the original beauty in the individual tracks.

    Remember your first CD, how it was so 'clear' ... PT is like that. Today that CD may be annoying, or it SHOULD be annoying. Misplaced or misrepresented harmonics and clocking, et. al. add up to one "low quality audio". I brought home a Mackie d8b once and hooked it up in place of the Ghost I had before this Neotek ... well, my girlfriend LEFT THE ROOM, because the sound was actually painful.

    And I am not anti-PT. I have a 002 and use it IN CONJUNCTION with a 2" machine. But you don't need a 2" to hear these things. I can hear these differences on my 4-track too.

    Analog, ANY analog, has an analogous realness to it which seems undervalued. And nevermind the 'future of audio', in a more pratical sense if we cannot hear PT vs. ANY analog on a quick listen with any system, what good are our views on Pre Amps and Mics, etc?

    Brian Lucey

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN, USA
    Posts
    27,246
    I am quite frustrated at the moment because of the project that I'm currently mixing. It was tracked on the API at the Sound Kitchen in the Big Boy room. Straight to RADAR 24, 24-bit 44.1. Sounded wonderful.

    I usually prefer to record everything to RADAR and not until we're finished do we export the tracks from RADAR. Not so on this project.

    They needed to do the overdubs somewhere else and finish it there before I mixed. So it was transferred to .wav files and loaded into PT and sent on its way.

    Now it's back and I'm really having a tough time. There are things going on that I hate. The engineering is not bad, but when you add any top end, all the overdub tracks turn to hash, brittle and strident sounding. The vocals seem to have gotten the worst of it. They're all thin but yet have no presence. You can't add top end because they get "shreddy."

    I'll have to do some investigating about what happened at the other end, but what I'm hearing on these OD tracks sounds nothing like what I typically get to mix when I record to RADAR first.
    Lynn Fuston
    3D Audio

    Making beautiful music SEEM easy since 1979.

  3. #23
    Haigbabe's Avatar
    Haigbabe is offline 3D VIP 2004, '05, '06, '07, '08, '09, '10, '11, '12
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,714
    Greets Lynn,

    Sorry to hear that things have been mangled along the way. It's so frustrating.

    Back to the PT thing though. Have you tried or even noticed the newer summing in the latest versions of PT?

    Also, did you try automating the reverb in PT to compensate for the soft-loud/ok-swimmy problem?

    Oh, and while I'm about it, any opinions on the Dangerous 2-Bus?

    Best regards,

    Haigbabe
    Proud supporter of 3D as a 2012 3D VIP

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN, USA
    Posts
    27,246
    Originally posted by Haigbabe:
    <STRONG>Greets Lynn,

    Sorry to hear that things have been mangled along the way. It's so frustrating.

    Back to the PT thing though. Have you tried or even noticed the newer summing in the latest versions of PT?

    Also, did you try automating the reverb in PT to compensate for the soft-loud/ok-swimmy problem?

    Oh, and while I'm about it, any opinions on the Dangerous 2-Bus?

    Best regards,

    Haigbabe</STRONG>
    I haven't tried HD yet, so no comment on that. I am noticing that some people are not as pleased with the "improvement" in the sound as much as they had hoped. Time will tell.

    I never automate reverb returns, with one exception. If someone wants that "reverb echoing down the canyon" effect after the cutoff of a big orchestral piece, sometimes I'll bump them up after the cutoff. I'm not sure if that would help or not in solving the problem I noticed. Interesting concept though.

    Haven't tried the Dangerous 2-bus. One of the Dangerous guys caught me in the aisle at AES and wanted me to try it out. I was on the way to a panel so I couldn't listen then. When I went back later, he wasn't there. So I haven't heard it yet.
    Lynn Fuston
    3D Audio

    Making beautiful music SEEM easy since 1979.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    205
    I woulda though you'd have learned to produced more CDs next time.
    Chris Thom
    www.ChrisThom.net
    www.myspace.com/IMChrisThom


    "Earth’s crammed with heaven,
    And every common bush afire with God;
    And only he who sees takes off his shoes;
    The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries."
    ~ Elizabeth Barrett Browning

    "Time flies like the wind.
    Fruit Flies like bananas."
    ~ Groucho Marx

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN, USA
    Posts
    27,246
    Originally posted by Chris Thom:
    <STRONG>I woulda though you'd have learned to produced more CDs next time. </STRONG>
    If I had known it would generate this kind of interest, I might have. It was just a real fast idea and a few CDRs that I sold for shipping plus cost. I think about 30 of them. Who knew?
    Lynn Fuston
    3D Audio

    Making beautiful music SEEM easy since 1979.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    8

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    205
    So let me pose a question.

    Since this CD is no longer available and out for production would it be considered immoral, illegal or unethical to have someone make a copy of theirs for someone else?

    I'm just asking...
    Chris Thom
    www.ChrisThom.net
    www.myspace.com/IMChrisThom


    "Earth’s crammed with heaven,
    And every common bush afire with God;
    And only he who sees takes off his shoes;
    The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries."
    ~ Elizabeth Barrett Browning

    "Time flies like the wind.
    Fruit Flies like bananas."
    ~ Groucho Marx

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN, USA
    Posts
    27,246
    Originally posted by Chris Thom:
    <STRONG>So let me pose a question.

    Since this CD is no longer available and out for production would it be considered immoral, illegal or unethical to have someone make a copy of theirs for someone else?

    I'm just asking... </STRONG>

    It would be wrong to do and could potentially jeopardize the possibility of doing more comparisons like this in the future. All the copies of the Neve vs. PT CD, a limited number on purpose, went out labeled as "demonstration only" which was in accordance with the agreement I struck with the owner of the musical arrangements and the recording. I had no idea that it would generate this kind of interest and did not make any arrangements for compensation to either myself or the company who paid for the original recordings. There were only about 50 copies sent out at just above my cost, for people to hear what was never intended as a scientific comparison, simply taking advantage of an opportunity that presented itself.

    Everyone who ordered one of the originals agreed not to copy or broadcast or duplicate or transmit in any way, shape or form. It's a matter of trust. The copyright owner trusted me to be true to my word of limited distribution and I trusted the people that ordered them.

    I hope people will respect that.

    There are people out there who will send you their copies if you ask. Several people have found copies that way already. You could get in touch with Brian Lucey who posts here and was eager to sell the copy he found.
    Lynn Fuston
    3D Audio

    Making beautiful music SEEM easy since 1979.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    16
    You mentioned that u could could get 'nearly identical' to the sound of a Neve mix through Pro-Tools. Hmmmm.

    I think I've mentioned this one:

    All that was compared here was summing busses! If you were using the faders (analog gain sounds different from digital gain) and the eqs on the Neve, and actually 'mixed' on the Neve, actually sent and returned fx on the Neve...well, the difference would be absolutely nutty I'm sure. The test didn't really consider the sound of 'circuits running hot' or panning anomalies on an analog desk. Also, the sound of eq-ed effects, which can make or break an effect (especially reverb...analog eq on a lexicon..YES!). Don't get me wrong, the test was a GREAT idea, and is totally valid - but only as a summing bus test. But no evaluations can be made about what sounds better as a mixer, PT or Neve. Just what sounds better for those who only require summing.

    To do that one would have to:

    1. Mix his *** off on a Neve, using everything on the board, and

    2. Do the same with PT.

    All those wanting the 'up-front' clarity of digital with a little analog separation should most definitely check out the dangerous 2-bus though. That puppy is johnny pro-tool's best friend. Few would dispute that going through that improves the sound without changing it much.
    jo

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What Lynn learned in the Preamp Comparison
    By 3daudioinc in forum Preamps In Paradise
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-07-2006, 03:57 AM
  2. Lynn, trouble with VIP password
    By KyleSong in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 08:12 PM
  3. What have people learned?
    By Dean Richard in forum Awesome DAW-SUM Comparison
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-04-2003, 12:25 AM
  4. Lynn in Audio Media...
    By john parry in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-18-2002, 04:06 AM
  5. Questions for Lynn & the Board
    By Antranig in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-04-2002, 04:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •