[jeffontheleft]

So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora. So I'm wondering
in what kind of setup would my money be best spent? On the one hand I
could keep the MOTU and use something in conjunction with it, or I
could just sell the MOTU and get a Rosetta 800 or some other interface
with higher-end converters. Thoughts?

[Chris Whealy]

jeffontheleft wrote:
So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora. So I'm wondering
in what kind of setup would my money be best spent? On the one hand I
could keep the MOTU and use something in conjunction with it, or I
could just sell the MOTU and get a Rosetta 800 or some other interface
with higher-end converters. Thoughts?

Wow, you can get a Rosetta 800 for $2000? Its that many pounds on this
side of the pond!

Perhaps an RME ADI-8 would fit your budget better
http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/ADI8ProDS/

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[[email protected]]

plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora. *

Well you can call me stubborn or whatever....

but if you can hear a "very big difference" between converters, then
either your test is flawed or one of the converters is defective.

Mark

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:13:40 -0800 (PST), jeffontheleft
wrote:

So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora.

Changing A/D won't have made a "very big" difference. Were the
systems otherwise identical? I think there'll be other places your
money could make a real difference.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
jeffontheleft wrote:
So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora. So I'm wondering
in what kind of setup would my money be best spent? On the one hand I
could keep the MOTU and use something in conjunction with it, or I
could just sell the MOTU and get a Rosetta 800 or some other interface
with higher-end converters. Thoughts?

How many channels do you need to be recording and playing back at the
same time? $2000 will buy you a high end 2-channel A/D and D/A on the
used market... but if you want 8 channels you will not get as much
per channel.

What are you using for a D/A for monitoring? You may want to deal with
that first.

You should also know that the main difference between studios may turn
out to be the acoustics and not the hardware.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jeffontheleft]

On Jan 6, 12:02*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article ,

jeffontheleft wrote:
So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. *Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora. *So I'm wondering
in what kind of setup would my money be best spent? *On the one hand I
could keep the MOTU and use something in conjunction with it, or I
could just sell the MOTU and get a Rosetta 800 or some other interface
with higher-end converters. *Thoughts?

How many channels do you need to be recording and playing back at the
same time? *$2000 will buy you a high end 2-channel A/D and D/A on the
used market... *but if you want 8 channels you will not get as much
per channel.

What are you using for a D/A for monitoring? *You may want to deal with
that first.

You should also know that the main difference between studios may turn
out to be the acoustics and not the hardware.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Alright, seems to be a consensus that it may not be as crucial as I
thought. Thanks for the input.

[Arny Krueger]

"jeffontheleft" wrote in message


So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it
into an A/D converter. Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD
for that, but I'm beginning to experiment with tape plus
I can hear a very big difference in fidelity between my
recordings on the MOTU and those I make using similar
gear in a studio with an Aurora.

Sounds like something other than an apples-to-apples comparison.

Here's a simple test.

Take the best-sounding .wav file you ever made, and re-record it through
your MOTU say 10-20 times. IOW make a copy, make a copy of the copy, etc.

Then, using your DAW software, ensure that the original and the 10x copies
are the same level, and start and end at the same time.

Compare the two using some software that is designed to help you audibly
compare two files like this:

http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/

The software will keep the two files in total synch, so any real differences
will be obvious.

Let your ears be your guide!

[Geoff]

jeffontheleft wrote:
So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora.

Maybe you heard a big difference, or maybe you are subject to expectation
effect. If you'v got the $$$, just go out and buy the most expensive unit
you can find. It will doubtlessly sound much better.

geoff

[Geoff]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:13:40 -0800 (PST), jeffontheleft
wrote:

So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora.

Changing A/D won't have made a "very big" difference. Were the
systems otherwise identical? I think there'll be other places your
money could make a real difference.

Maybe moved head a few inches. That should swamp any differences in AD
systems by an order of magnitude. Or maybe the MOTU is broken ?

geoff

[dwgriffi]

While it's true that the actual converters aren't that much better or
worse, units certainly can sound noticeably "different" due to
everything else in the box. They don't all sound the same. And
people have preferences.

[David@liminal]

On Jan 6, 10:04*pm, "geoff" wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:13:40 -0800 (PST), jeffontheleft
wrote:

So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. *Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora.

Changing A/D won't have made a "very big" difference. *Were the
systems otherwise identical? *I think there'll be other places your
money could make a real difference.

Maybe moved head a few inches. *That should swamp any differences in AD
systems by an order of magnitude. *Or maybe the MOTU is broken ?

geoff

I'm surprised at the direction of this discussion. I did some head to
head tests last year between various converters last year when I was
in the market for a system for the place I teach. Putting MOTU, RME,
Lynx, Apogee and Prism D/As up against one-another revealed pretty
pronounced differences in an otherwise identical signal chain. Sure
it's a law of diminishing returns and other elements of the chain are
often more significant but the difference is there none the less and
they are not always subtle. I have a MOTU traveler in my studio and
occasionally borrow the Prism Orpheus from work. I'm basically happy
with the traveler but swapping it for the orpheus is akin to the
experience I once had of getting new glasses when a new prescription
was long overdue - it's like a veil being removed!

[Arny Krueger]

"David@liminal" wrote in message


I'm surprised at the direction of this discussion. I did
some head to head tests last year between various
converters last year when I was in the market for a
system for the place I teach. Putting MOTU, RME, Lynx,
Apogee and Prism D/As up against one-another revealed
pretty pronounced differences in an otherwise identical
signal chain. Sure it's a law of diminishing returns and
other elements of the chain are often more significant
but the difference is there none the less and they are
not always subtle. I have a MOTU traveler in my studio
and occasionally borrow the Prism Orpheus from work. I'm
basically happy with the traveler but swapping it for the
orpheus is akin to the experience I once had of getting
new glasses when a new prescription was long overdue -
it's like a veil being removed!

Did you match levels within 0.1 dB before you started the test?

Did you arrange the test so you could compare the converters with less than
1 second of changeover time?

[David@liminal]

On Jan 7, 11:32*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"David@liminal" wrote in message



I'm surprised at the direction of this discussion. *I did
some head to head tests last year between various
converters last year when I was in the market for a
system for the place I teach. *Putting MOTU, RME, Lynx,
Apogee and Prism D/As up against one-another revealed
pretty pronounced differences in an otherwise identical
signal chain. Sure it's a law of diminishing returns and
other elements of the chain are often more significant
but the difference is there none the less and they are
not always subtle. *I have a MOTU traveler in my studio
and occasionally borrow the Prism Orpheus from work. *I'm
basically happy with the traveler but swapping it for the
orpheus is akin to the experience I once had of getting
new glasses when a new prescription was long overdue -
it's like a veil being removed!

Did you match levels within 0.1 dB before you started the test?

No

Did you arrange the test so you could compare the converters with less than
1 second of changeover time?

Yes

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 5:04*pm, "geoff" wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:13:40 -0800 (PST), jeffontheleft
wrote:

So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. *Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora.

Changing A/D won't have made a "very big" difference. *Were the
systems otherwise identical? *I think there'll be other places your
money could make a real difference.

Maybe moved head a few inches. *That should swamp any differences in AD
systems by an order of magnitude. *Or maybe the MOTU is broken ?

geoff



If one had several different companies' boxes and they did not sound
subtly different then something else would be broken. It's not
unthinkable that the ones at the opposite ends of the spectrum,
overall tone would easily be noticeably different. After all, there
is an "A" in A/D.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 9:05*am, wrote:
On Jan 6, 5:04*pm, "geoff" wrote:





Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:13:40 -0800 (PST), jeffontheleft
wrote:

So I've got about $2000 to spend and I'd like to put it into an A/D
converter. *Currently I'm using a MOTU 896HD for that, but I'm
beginning to experiment with tape plus I can hear a very big
difference in fidelity between my recordings on the MOTU and those I
make using similar gear in a studio with an Aurora.

Changing A/D won't have made a "very big" difference. *Were the
systems otherwise identical? *I think there'll be other places your
money could make a real difference.

Maybe moved head a few inches. *That should swamp any differences in AD
systems by an order of magnitude. *Or maybe the MOTU is broken ?

geoff

If one had several different companies' boxes and they did not sound
subtly different then something else would be broken. *It's not
unthinkable that the ones at the opposite ends of the spectrum,
overall tone would easily be noticeably different. *After all, there
is an "A" in A/D.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

then the next step is to make a MEASUREMENT and document what the
difference actually is...and decide how important it is, and which one
is actually better fidelity, not just "sounds better"

Is one box actually flat and sounds dull compared to another box that
is up 1/2 dB at 20 kHz?

without measurments, it's all just so much BULL.



Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

then the next step is to make a MEASUREMENT and document what the
difference actually is...and decide how important it is, and which one
is actually better fidelity, not just "sounds better"

Is one box actually flat and sounds dull compared to another box that
is up 1/2 dB at 20 kHz?

without measurments, it's all just so much BULL.

The problem is that it's hard to know what measurements are really important,
even after quite a few years of digital development.

We're all pretty sure that monotonicity is really important, and we're all
sure dither is important but nobody can agree what dither spectrum is really
neutral-sounding. We all agree jitter is important and that the jitter
spectrum is a big deal, but there isn't any inexpensive hardware out there
(sort of the Agilent modulation domain analyzers) to do the job, so most
folks never see real jitter plots.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 9:41*am, wrote:


then the next step is to make a MEASUREMENT and document what the
difference actually is...and decide how important it is, and which one
is actually better fidelity, not just "sounds better"

Is one box actually flat and sounds dull compared to another box that
is up 1/2 dB at 20 kHz?

without *measurments, *it's all just so much BULL.


But even AFTER measurements, one person's flat is another one's dull.
Measurements don't say which one is your preferred sounding one,
that's for your ears and preferences.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On Jan 7, 9:41=A0am, wrote:

then the next step is to make a MEASUREMENT and document what the
difference actually is...and decide how important it is, and which one
is actually better fidelity, not just "sounds better"

Is one box actually flat and sounds dull compared to another box that
is up 1/2 dB at 20 kHz?

without =A0measurments, =A0it's all just so much BULL.

But even AFTER measurements, one person's flat is another one's dull.
Measurements don't say which one is your preferred sounding one,
that's for your ears and preferences.

Right, but the thing is that if you have good measurements and you figure
out the right measurements (and that's the hard part to do), you can use
the measurements to get a good idea about what it's going to sound like
with respect to your preferences.

There's no set of measurements that completely define how a system will
sound yet, but there are a pretty good set of measurements that we can at
least use to rule out a lot of products so we don't have to listen to them
all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ethan Winer]

Scott,

You should also know that the main difference between studios may turn out
to be the acoustics and not the hardware.

Now THAT I can heartily agree with.

It kills me when people who are unhappy with the quality of their
productions fail to consider the one thing that matters more than almost
anything else - the accuracy of their monitoring. The cheapest POS
motherboard sound card will be flat within 1 or 2 dB over the entire audible
range. But any room you listen in will have numerous peak / null spans in
the bass range of literally 30 dB or even worse.

Priorities people! :-)

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

There's no set of measurements that completely define how a system will
sound yet

All that matters (broadly) a

* Frequency Response
* Distortion
* Noise
* Time-Based Errors

There's nothing else! Yes, there are subsets - hum and vinyl crackles fall
under Noise, and Distortion comes in many flavors including aliasing. But we
can easily measure EVERYTHING that matters to orders of magnitude lower than
anyone can possibly hear.

--Ethan

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
There's no set of measurements that completely define how a system will
sound yet

All that matters (broadly) a

* Frequency Response
* Distortion
* Noise
* Time-Based Errors

There's nothing else! Yes, there are subsets - hum and vinyl crackles fall
under Noise, and Distortion comes in many flavors including aliasing.

I'll buy that.

But we
can easily measure EVERYTHING that matters to orders of magnitude lower than
anyone can possibly hear.

I'm not sure I'll buy that. But another big issue is that since we CAN
measure so many things to such low levels, it can sometimes be hard to know
which measurements are significant and which are not. I have often been
surprised at how tiny amounts of high order harmonic distortion can be audible
and huge amounts of group delay aren't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

wrote:

then the next step is to make a MEASUREMENT and document
what the difference actually is...and decide how
important it is, and which one is actually better
fidelity, not just "sounds better"

Is one box actually flat and sounds dull compared to
another box that is up 1/2 dB at 20 kHz?

without measurements, it's all just so much BULL.

The problem is that it's hard to know what measurements
are really important, even after quite a few years of
digital development.

Not so much, any more.

First off, there's no controversy over the idea that +/- 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz
is more than good enough for sonic transparency.

There is controversy over the "Ultrasonic Effect", but there's quite a bit
of evidence that it does not relate to hearing, if we limit hearing to sound
that goes down the ear canal and enters the middle ear.

Such real controversies that may remain in serious circles, is over what
range of measurements of nonlinear distortion are audibly significant.

The current consensus is that if a spurious response is 100 dB or more down,
then it is moot. The actual thresholds are closer to 60-80 dB down.

Remember that not that many years ago, everybody was pleased as punch with
analog tape and disc, and their jitter was often in the -40 to - 60 dB range
on really good days. There was also a ton of nonlinear distortion - on the
order of a few percent in the usual operating range. And, neither total
output nor frequency response came close to the +/- 0.1 standard. Speakers
still often play by those rules.

We're all pretty sure that monotonicity is really
important, and we're all sure dither is important but
nobody can agree what dither spectrum is really
neutral-sounding.

Dither is never supposed to be heard so it is by definition moot.

We all agree jitter is important and
that the jitter spectrum is a big deal, but there isn't
any inexpensive hardware out there (sort of the Agilent
modulation domain analyzers) to do the job,

Actually everybody has some pretty good test equipment on hand - the audio
interface that they already have.

so most folks never see real jitter plots. --scott

Again, the frequency and amplitude of jitter strongly relates to audibility.
But, the 100 dB rule still holds.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


But even AFTER measurements, one person's flat is another
one's dull.

At their core, our fundamental tools like recorders are supposed to be flat
and uncolored.

Questions about flat and dull are only supposed to exist in the
discretionary parts of the production chain, the parts we accomplish with
tools like mics, mic placement, equalization, etc.

People who don't know how to get the non-flat thing thing they want with
conventional tools for doing that, would appear to need more training and
experience.

Measurements don't say which one is your
preferred sounding one, that's for your ears and
preferences.

If you want to play with recorders that are confused about their role and
like to pretend they are equalizers, then that's a choice you get to make.
Enjoy! If you like to mess around with legacy recording technology that is
always colored, then again that's your thing and enjoy!.

But most people aren't buying any, these days. They don't have to. Most who
had to play that game got mad as the dickens and aren't taking it any more.
Hence the near-universal popularity of digital recorders.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 12:23*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

People who don't know how to get the non-flat thing thing they want with
conventional tools for doing that, would appear to need more training and
experience.

Measurements don't say which one is your
preferred sounding one, that's for your ears and
preferences.

If you want to play with recorders that are confused about their role and
like to pretend they are equalizers, then that's a choice you get to make..
Enjoy! * If you like to mess around with legacy recording technology that is
always colored, then again that's your thing and enjoy!.

But most people aren't buying any, these days. They don't have to. Most who
had to play that game got mad as the dickens and aren't taking it any more.
Hence the near-universal popularity of digital recorders.


Arny, none of that is my point. People can say a different converter
won't make any difference in your sound in the big picture, but if
they say all units sound the same they would be wrong.

I don't advocate using anything colored as a converter. But the
better converters may be more true. Please don't tell me that the
MOTU 2408 that I gave away is as useful as what I replaced it
with : ) No mic technique or room treatment changed, I swear! : )

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

We're all pretty sure that monotonicity is really
important, and we're all sure dither is important but
nobody can agree what dither spectrum is really
neutral-sounding.

Dither is never supposed to be heard so it is by definition moot.

But it is. I can adjust the dither spectrum and get perceived tonal
changes in the signals more than 70 dB above the noise floor. Why?
I don't know. But I can do it double-blind and so can some other folks.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

There's actually an interesting parallel between this thread and the
Linux one. On the one hand, on that one there's a bit of "it should
just work. Just let me record", and the same people here may (or may
not) be ones saying "Make the measurements!" to folks who don't even
know what the significance of the numbers would be. They just want to
work. Make me a box that works.

I don't think most people who have purchased converters are going to
measure them after the purchase, for better or worse, unless it's out
of curiosity, and it certainly was more true years ago when the tools
weren't available as a bonus plug-in. I never personally owned such
a tool until then. They're either buying based on information they've
attained (including the measurements) or, like the ones who find Linux
too much trouble, they bought it to power up and use, and unless it
gets in the way of their work, that's that.

[[email protected]]

....and we're all sure dither is important but
nobody can agree what dither spectrum is really
neutral-sounding.

Dither is never supposed to be heard so it is by definition moot.

But it is. *I can adjust the dither spectrum and get perceived tonal
changes in the signals more than 70 dB above the noise floor. *Why?
I don't know. *But I can do it double-blind and so can some other folks..
--scott

changing the dither spectrum does change the spectrum of the noise
floor (obviously) and that can be heard if you can hear the noise
floor... which is easy enough to believe

Mark

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

We're all pretty sure that monotonicity is really
important, and we're all sure dither is important but
nobody can agree what dither spectrum is really
neutral-sounding.

Dither is never supposed to be heard so it is by
definition moot.

But it is. I can adjust the dither spectrum and get
perceived tonal changes in the signals more than 70 dB
above the noise floor. Why?
I don't know. But I can do it double-blind and so can
some other folks. --scott

This sounds like the "shaped dither" versus spectrally flat dither
controversy all over again.

This is muddy territory because dither mavens do crazy things like attenuate
24 bit recordings by 40 dB, dither it down to 16 bits, and then amplify the
results by 40 dB. Not exactly how most people listen to recordings most of
the time.

It's usually not an apples-to-apples comparison. If you shape the dither
aggressively, but keep the power level constant, then you end up with a
noise floor that is many-many dB above LSB, usually just below Nyquist. At
some point you've come close to adding something whose spectral content
isn't really that much different from a 20 KHz sine wave. A 20 KHz sine wave
can be heard by many people if it is loud enough and the music doesn't mask
it. It can be loud enough to intermodulate with other signals in nonlinear
reproducing chains, producing difference tones that are down where the human
ear is very sensitive.

I'll stick to my story - well-designed dither can't be heard under normal
conditions on a 16 bit recording. If you hear it, then its not
well-designed. Simple as that - a truism if you will.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


People can say a
different converter won't make any difference in your
sound in the big picture, but if they say all units sound
the same they would be wrong.

IME the only people who talk about "all units sound the same" are people who
believe that they all sound different.

Back in the real world, all good converters sound the same. Its another
truism, if they sound different, then they are obviously not good.

I don't advocate using anything colored as a converter.
But the better converters may be more true. Please don't
tell me that the MOTU 2408 that I gave away is as useful
as what I replaced it with : ) No mic technique or room treatment
changed,
I swear! : )


Ever do a level-matched, time-synched DBT on some music that you've
round-tripped through a converter pair 5, 10, 20 times? I have. At 20 times
I can hear some pretty good converters. It actually takes something
exceptional like a LynxTWO to be that good , 20 times and can't hear a
change. At 10 times I can hear a few pretty good converters. At 5 times
even less, none really good.

Audibility at just one pass through back-to-back converters is
characteristic of some pretty bad crap, such as the original SoundBlaster
Live! Not even Creative Labs are making converters that sound that bad,
today! A rising tide lifts all the boats that don't sink. ;-)

That all said, I've opened the door for audio production people to be pretty
picky about converters. We just might send some digital file through the
analog domain 3-5 times while we are working on it. We can justify that
level of quality and a good bit more, on the grounds that we need a safety
margin.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 6:40*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:

The term Gaussian when applied to dither refers to the AMPLITUDE
distribution (the probability density of the amplitude) *which is a
different thing compared to dither noise shaping which changes the
noise spectrum in the FREQUENCY domain. *The two parameters are pretty
much independent. *Like WHITE and GAUSSIAN noise.

I'll buy that. *But the switch says "SBM" vs. "Gaussian" on the panel.
To be honest, I am not sure I really know WHAT the pattern of the
dither produced by SBM is and I am not sure anyone outside of Sony does.

In theory, the choice of type of dither should effect only the sound
of the noise floor and not the sound of the signal.

Yes, this is what is so confusing. *The noise floor is way down, and
therefore changing the character of the noise floor should not affect
perception of anything 70 dB up.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

OK agreed...

I was curious about SBM too... searching the net I cam across the
Sony "Bread" Maker and ironically after reading the hype below, I
think that's what it really stands for.

This is what else I found:

http://www.daisy-laser.com/technolog...techsacd13.htm
http://remixmag.com/mag/remix_sony_cdrw_cd/

This one is best:

http://starin.info/Product%20Info/So...%20Mapping.pdf

Seems like ordinary noise shaping so the cool acroym is a way to make
"bread" for Sony.

Mark

[Arny Krueger]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


People can say a
different converter won't make any difference in your
sound in the big picture, but if they say all units
sound the same they would be wrong.

IME the only people who talk about "all units sound the
same" are people who believe that they all sound
different. Back in the real world, all good converters sound the
same. Its another truism, if they sound different, then
they are obviously not good.
I don't advocate using anything colored as a converter.
But the better converters may be more true. Please
don't tell me that the MOTU 2408 that I gave away is as useful
as what I replaced it with : ) No mic technique or
room treatment changed,
I swear! : )


Ever do a level-matched, time-synched DBT on some music
that you've round-tripped through a converter pair 5,
10, 20 times? I have. At 20 times I can hear some
pretty good converters. It actually takes something
exceptional like a LynxTWO to be that good , 20 times
and can't hear a change. At 10 times I can hear a few
pretty good converters. At 5 times even less, none
really good.

Hmm, how about where you are working with a lot of tracks
- say 100 - could this build up into an audible 'haze'
when summed into a mix?

Audible haze is usually the result of bad recording mixing, typified by
having as many as 100 indistinct tracks to mix.

How do you even get 100 tracks to mix?

[Arny Krueger]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message
news
Scott,

You should also know that the main difference between
studios may turn out
to be the acoustics and not the hardware.

Now THAT I can heartily agree with.

It kills me when people who are unhappy with the quality
of their productions fail to consider the one thing that
matters more than almost anything else - the accuracy of
their monitoring. The cheapest POS motherboard sound
card will be flat within 1 or 2 dB over the entire
audible range. But any room you listen in will have numerous
peak / null spans in the bass range of literally 30 dB
or even worse. Priorities people! :-)

Well, yes :-)

If I'm going to plunk down a couple of grand I want it to
be on something new, shiny and high-tech, not bunch cloth
covered panels.

Your gun, your bullet, your foot.

How many good audio interfaces are you going to blow off before you figure
out that its insane to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different
result?

Maybe that's because the company with the
high-tech toy has been spending a lot of money convincing
me how sexy it is, and how it will make my music leap out
of the cheapest boom box with Bose clarity BG.

Apparently sad but true.

[Chris Whealy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Audible haze is usually the result of bad recording mixing, typified by
having as many as 100 indistinct tracks to mix.

How do you even get 100 tracks to mix?


No too hard. Last year (errr, Christmas 2007) I had to create a partial
backing track for a big stage performance at our church.
This contained all the supplementary instrument tracks, extra backing
vocals, and special effects on the left channel (played through the
FOH). Then the right channel was for click track, stage prompts and
various other cues and was heard in-ear by the choir and orchestra
conductors, and stage left and stage right floor managers.

Can't remember the exact number of channels, but it was in the nineties...

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Chris Whealy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

If I'm going to plunk down a couple of grand I want it to
be on something new, shiny and high-tech, not bunch cloth
covered panels.


Your gun, your bullet, your foot.

How many good audio interfaces are you going to blow off before you figure
out that its insane to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different
result?


Maybe that's because the company with the
high-tech toy has been spending a lot of money convincing
me how sexy it is, and how it will make my music leap out
of the cheapest boom box with Bose clarity BG.


Apparently sad but true.



I think he was being sarcastic...

But nonetheless, Sean has a point that many people are persuaded by
clever marketing and consequently spend all their money in the wrong places.

I've learnt (the hard way), that the order in which money should be
spent is roughly:
1) Acoustic treatment to make your monitoring environment as flat as
possible
2) Good quality monitor speakers
3) Good quality mics
4) Connected to good quality pre amps

Then (unless you have a /really/ poor quality mixer), the rest is icing
on the cake

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Ethan Winer]

Scott,

since we CAN measure so many things to such low levels, it can sometimes
be hard to know which measurements are significant and which are not. I
have often been surprised at how tiny amounts of high order harmonic
distortion can be audible and huge amounts of group delay aren't.

Group delay doesn't add new content or change the frequency response, so
there's not much "there" to be audible. But added artifacts are audible if
they're loud enough and not masked. In my experience, once artifacts are 80
dB below the desired signal they're not likely to be audible no matter what
frequencies are present.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Chris,

Sean has a point that many people are persuaded by clever marketing and
consequently spend all their money in the wrong places.

I need to hire me one of those clever marketing companies. :-)

--Ethan

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Whealy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Audible haze is usually the result of bad recording
mixing, typified by having as many as 100 indistinct
tracks to mix. How do you even get 100 tracks to mix?


No too hard. Last year (errr, Christmas 2007) I had to
create a partial backing track for a big stage
performance at our church. This contained all the supplementary instrument
tracks,
extra backing vocals, and special effects on the left
channel (played through the FOH). Then the right channel was for click
track, stage
prompts and various other cues and was heard in-ear by
the choir and orchestra conductors, and stage left and
stage right floor managers.
Can't remember the exact number of channels, but it was
in the nineties...

In the middle of a firestorm like that, converters would be the *last* thing
I'd blame.

[Sean Conolly]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


People can say a
different converter won't make any difference in your
sound in the big picture, but if they say all units
sound the same they would be wrong.

IME the only people who talk about "all units sound the
same" are people who believe that they all sound
different. Back in the real world, all good converters sound the
same. Its another truism, if they sound different, then
they are obviously not good.
I don't advocate using anything colored as a converter.
But the better converters may be more true. Please
don't tell me that the MOTU 2408 that I gave away is as useful
as what I replaced it with : ) No mic technique or
room treatment changed,
I swear! : )


Ever do a level-matched, time-synched DBT on some music
that you've round-tripped through a converter pair 5,
10, 20 times? I have. At 20 times I can hear some
pretty good converters. It actually takes something
exceptional like a LynxTWO to be that good , 20 times
and can't hear a change. At 10 times I can hear a few
pretty good converters. At 5 times even less, none
really good.

Hmm, how about where you are working with a lot of tracks
- say 100 - could this build up into an audible 'haze'
when summed into a mix?

Audible haze is usually the result of bad recording mixing, typified by
having as many as 100 indistinct tracks to mix.

How do you even get 100 tracks to mix?

Me, never, but think about a movie sound designer, they could easily end up
working with more than that.

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
Chris,

Sean has a point that many people are persuaded by clever marketing and
consequently spend all their money in the wrong places.

I need to hire me one of those clever marketing companies. :-)

"We don't just treat sound - offending tones are hunted down and burtally
terminated.."

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Chris Whealy" wrote in message
...
I think he was being sarcastic...

I usually am :-)

As openly declared amateur at this stuff I try not to get too serious about
unless I'm pretty sure about what I'm talking about - so most of my comments
are either humor or sarcasm. I still get foot in mouth disease sometimes.

Sean