An open letter to Mix Magazine from Mixerman

[Mixerman]

I sent this letter to the editor of Mix magazine, but they don't want to
print the letter in its entirety. Further, they say they won't print what I
can only assume to be some watered down version of the letter until the May
issue. I sent the letter to them in January. Do they think I was born
yesterday? They obviously underestimate the delivery power of the net. How
typical of a print magazine.



Here's the letter:





Dear Mix,



I read the in-depth review of the Dangerous product line in your October
issue. Although I felt the review had an overabundance of technical
information, it was well written, on point regarding the shortcomings of
DAWs in general, and very clear on how the Dangerous product line can
drastically improve such shortcomings. Had I never read another Mix article
again in my life, I would have walked away with a positive image of your
magazine.



Unfortunately, I read the December issue.



In the December issue, you managed to somehow "retract" your reviewer's
statements on DAWs, which were about as controversial as stating the sky is
blue. You replaced these general statements with the technical specs of one
particular manufacturer's DAW. Given that, I found your "retractions" to be
about as unbiased as Scott Peterson's Mom.



Let's evaluate these "retractions."



You first "retracted" the following: "Digital mixing and summing inside your
DAW to stereo outputs requires that you do not overload the internal digital
mixing bus by lowering all the mixer faders."



Your "retraction" begins: "According to Digidesign's documentation.."



According to Digidesign's documentation? The statement was made about DAWs
in general -- not about a Digidesign product.



In the very next sentence of the original article, the reviewer states:
"When any track fader's level is internally reduced, its digital resolution
is also reduced."



Your retraction begins: "Digidesign states that the mixer inside Pro Tools
is.."



Again, where does the original statement discuss Digidesign or its product?



Perhaps the digital resolution is not reduced in all DAWs, but it has been
well established within the recording community that internally reducing a
track fader will greatly reduce its audio quality. I suspect this was the
intention of the reviewer's statement and would have probably served as a
more suitable "retraction" than citing Digidesign's documentation.



Next the reviewer states: "Spreading out a mix over many stems and direct
outputs lets you maintain hotter digital levels for higher resolution,
resulting in a better-sounding mix with increased depth, image width and
headroom, and less distortion."



Your retraction starts: "In reality, the 2-Bus' distortion spec is.." and
concludes: ".which means that passing the 192's output through the Dangerous
2-Bus increases the distortion.."



Once again, you relate the "retraction" specifically to Digidesign's
product. Even my Mom knows that spreading a mix out over stems will greatly
increase the quality of audio from a DAW. However, in this "retraction,"
you discard the overall truthfulness of the statement to focus on distortion
specs. For this, I have two words. "Distortion, dismortion!" People pay
enormous sums of money for consoles with far higher distortion levels than
what is being "retracted" here.



All these "retractions" made me curious. So, I went back to look at the
review. There is not one reference to Digidesign where any of these
statements is concerned. The closest reference to a Digidesign product is
some four paragraphs later that merely offers an example of how to hook up
the Dangerous 2-Bus. Yet Mix prints a "retraction" to these statements,
citing Digidesign documentation.



This begs two questions: Why do you have and where did you get the
Digidesign documentation that you quoted? And more importantly, why are you
printing what amounts to a Digidesign sales pitch in the guise of a
"retraction?"



From what I understand, the Dangerous 2-Bus can be used to improve other
systems such as Nuendo, Digital Performer, Paris, and Logic among others.
Are you planning to print other DAW manufacturer- slanted "retractions"
relating to these products soon?



Contrary to not-so-popular opinion, DAW does not stand for Digidesign's
Audio Workstation. So, may I suggest that the next time a reviewer makes a
reasonable and self-evident statement about DAWs in general (that's Digital
Audio Workstation), you should consider foregoing "retractions" that reek of
technical, hot-button, sales-pitch babble that directly benefits one of your
major advertisers. It's bad for your cred.



The bottom line is this. The Dangerous products are well designed, sound
great, and can greatly improve the enjoyment of one's DAW. And seeing as
the only measuring device that I use is actually attached to the sides of my
head, you'll just have to take my word on that.



Mixerman



I offer a backstory, some comments, and even a slightly humorous tidbit
about myself on a thread in my forum. There are also many pointed questions
that I didn't have space for in this letter. Just clik the direct link
below. This isn't about hits, folks. If it was, I wouldn't have posted the
letter here among other audio forums.



http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=161449#161449

[Kirt Shearer]

Mixerman,

I wholheartedly agree. That entire fiasco struck me the same way.
They seemed to be not so subtly forced to read from the book of
Digidesign. I had a mental image of a 'Digi-goon" going over to the
Mix office to "explain" a few things to them....and " suggest" that it
would be in their best interest to "clarify" a few things. I mean,
c'mon! We're talking about basic concepts in digital, here. It was as
though you're not allowed to even question any possible issue with
digital summing. Yeah, that "retraction" was way out of line.
Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios
www.paradisestudios.net
"Mixerman" > wrote in message >...
> I sent this letter to the editor of Mix magazine, but they don't want to
> print the letter in its entirety. Further, they say they won't print what I
> can only assume to be some watered down version of the letter until the May
> issue. I sent the letter to them in January. Do they think I was born
> yesterday? They obviously underestimate the delivery power of the net. How
> typical of a print magazine.
>
>
>
> Here's the letter:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mix,
>
>
>
> I read the in-depth review of the Dangerous product line in your October
> issue. Although I felt the review had an overabundance of technical
> information, it was well written, on point regarding the shortcomings of
> DAWs in general, and very clear on how the Dangerous product line can
> drastically improve such shortcomings. Had I never read another Mix article
> again in my life, I would have walked away with a positive image of your
> magazine.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, I read the December issue.
>
>
>
> In the December issue, you managed to somehow "retract" your reviewer's
> statements on DAWs, which were about as controversial as stating the sky is
> blue. You replaced these general statements with the technical specs of one
> particular manufacturer's DAW. Given that, I found your "retractions" to be
> about as unbiased as Scott Peterson's Mom.
>
>
>
> Let's evaluate these "retractions."
>
>
>
> You first "retracted" the following: "Digital mixing and summing inside your
> DAW to stereo outputs requires that you do not overload the internal digital
> mixing bus by lowering all the mixer faders."
>
>
>
> Your "retraction" begins: "According to Digidesign's documentation.."
>
>
>
> According to Digidesign's documentation? The statement was made about DAWs
> in general -- not about a Digidesign product.
>
>
>
> In the very next sentence of the original article, the reviewer states:
> "When any track fader's level is internally reduced, its digital resolution
> is also reduced."
>
>
>
> Your retraction begins: "Digidesign states that the mixer inside Pro Tools
> is.."
>
>
>
> Again, where does the original statement discuss Digidesign or its product?
>
>
>
> Perhaps the digital resolution is not reduced in all DAWs, but it has been
> well established within the recording community that internally reducing a
> track fader will greatly reduce its audio quality. I suspect this was the
> intention of the reviewer's statement and would have probably served as a
> more suitable "retraction" than citing Digidesign's documentation.
>
>
>
> Next the reviewer states: "Spreading out a mix over many stems and direct
> outputs lets you maintain hotter digital levels for higher resolution,
> resulting in a better-sounding mix with increased depth, image width and
> headroom, and less distortion."
>
>
>
> Your retraction starts: "In reality, the 2-Bus' distortion spec is.." and
> concludes: ".which means that passing the 192's output through the Dangerous
> 2-Bus increases the distortion.."
>
>
>
> Once again, you relate the "retraction" specifically to Digidesign's
> product. Even my Mom knows that spreading a mix out over stems will greatly
> increase the quality of audio from a DAW. However, in this "retraction,"
> you discard the overall truthfulness of the statement to focus on distortion
> specs. For this, I have two words. "Distortion, dismortion!" People pay
> enormous sums of money for consoles with far higher distortion levels than
> what is being "retracted" here.
>
>
>
> All these "retractions" made me curious. So, I went back to look at the
> review. There is not one reference to Digidesign where any of these
> statements is concerned. The closest reference to a Digidesign product is
> some four paragraphs later that merely offers an example of how to hook up
> the Dangerous 2-Bus. Yet Mix prints a "retraction" to these statements,
> citing Digidesign documentation.
>
>
>
> This begs two questions: Why do you have and where did you get the
> Digidesign documentation that you quoted? And more importantly, why are you
> printing what amounts to a Digidesign sales pitch in the guise of a
> "retraction?"
>
>
>
> From what I understand, the Dangerous 2-Bus can be used to improve other
> systems such as Nuendo, Digital Performer, Paris, and Logic among others.
> Are you planning to print other DAW manufacturer- slanted "retractions"
> relating to these products soon?
>
>
>
> Contrary to not-so-popular opinion, DAW does not stand for Digidesign's
> Audio Workstation. So, may I suggest that the next time a reviewer makes a
> reasonable and self-evident statement about DAWs in general (that's Digital
> Audio Workstation), you should consider foregoing "retractions" that reek of
> technical, hot-button, sales-pitch babble that directly benefits one of your
> major advertisers. It's bad for your cred.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is this. The Dangerous products are well designed, sound
> great, and can greatly improve the enjoyment of one's DAW. And seeing as
> the only measuring device that I use is actually attached to the sides of my
> head, you'll just have to take my word on that.
>
>
>
> Mixerman
>
>
>
> I offer a backstory, some comments, and even a slightly humorous tidbit
> about myself on a thread in my forum. There are also many pointed questions
> that I didn't have space for in this letter. Just clik the direct link
> below. This isn't about hits, folks. If it was, I wouldn't have posted the
> letter here among other audio forums.
>
>
>
> http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=161449#161449

[michael cleary]

the smart play for mix would have been to just print a letter from
digidesign. then they might not have come off looking like such sheep.
Baaaa.

[Paul]

Wow, that is really unbelieveable. I've been using Nuendo for a whole
bunch of years at my studio, and have used the Dangerous stuff since
its been out.

Its really very funny how people assume that Digidesign is the defacto
standard for digital recording. Personally everytime I look at the
price tag on pro tools, I think of all the wonderful things I've been
able to do to improve my audio quality in place of that expense.

I'd give it time but I think that Digidesign house of cards is going
to come tumbling down one day. There was a time when farm cards made
pro tools worth the extra dough. Now with excellent add on DSP effects
like the UAD-1 and high performance PCs, I really have a hard time
seeing the benefit.



Paul

[Bob Olhsson]

"Mixerman" > wrote in message
...
> I sent this letter to the editor of Mix magazine, but they don't want to
> print the letter in its entirety.

I gave up on Mix when they refused to retract a claim that a DA-88 could
erase adjacent tracks if it lost power while in record while an ADAT
wouldn't. This false claim had first surfaced in some ADAT publicity. I'll
never forget the look on a bunch of the Alesis folk's faces when we
demonstrated you could yank out the plug over and over without it having the
slightest adverse effect. In fact, there wasn't even a pop on the track that
was in record when the plug was pulled!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Jay Levitt]

In article >,
says...
> Further, they say they won't print what I
> can only assume to be some watered down version of the letter until the May
> issue. I sent the letter to them in January.

That sounds like a typical lead time for a color print mag - the May
issue probably goes to the printer right about now. This is why I have
rarely read magazines on paper since the net became popular, and I'm not
alone - technical magazine publishers aren't doing so well these days.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Its really very funny how people assume that Digidesign is the defacto
> standard for digital recording.

Well, between their own ads and Swee****er's ads, they're certainly
one of the biggest spenders. That carries some weight with the
editorial staff, at least to publish their responses to an article.

I agree that it shouldn't be a "retraction" however, just a
"Digidesign responds" letter or article. I didn't look up the issues
in question so I don't know if I would interpret it as Mixerman did.

> I'd give it time but I think that Digidesign house of cards is going
> to come tumbling down one day.

I don't see it tumbling, but eventually there will be some other way
of doing what they do that works out better for enough people to be
more than just a small sales hiccup. Digidesing has been diligent in
upgrading both their hardware and software, and that's kept dedicated
users sticking around. What do you see next that they won't adapt to?

Understand that the biggest thing that Digidesign has going for them
is name recognition. If a certain level client asks for ProTools, he
doesn't expect the capability of ProTools on another platform, he
expects ProTools, and he'll go where it's offered. These are the
clients and the studios who spend the big money. Nobody -
manufacturers or dealers - makes a living selling $2000 DAW systems.
They need to keep the $20K ProTools the professoinal studio standard
just like Ampex, Studer, MCI, and Otari did with 2" recorders. 3M,
TASCAM, and some oddballs were perfectly decent machines, but they
just didn't have the market penetration, so they pulled out of the
game early. I don't see that happening to ProTools just because
there's Nuendo and UA and t.c. DSP cards available.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[GoobAudio]

I was going to subscribe to mix. Thanks for saving me the money, I am not a
digi person and I sure do not want a digi editor.

Phil

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Mixerman > wrote:
[snip]
>You first "retracted" the following: "Digital mixing and summing inside your
>DAW to stereo outputs requires that you do not overload the internal digital
>mixing bus by lowering all the mixer faders."
>
>Your "retraction" begins: "According to Digidesign's documentation.."
>
>According to Digidesign's documentation? The statement was made about DAWs
>in general -- not about a Digidesign product.

Well, I don't know how the original reviewer's statement could be true
across all platforms and all possible summing algorithms in a DAW.
Some 'master fader' implementations could attenuate after summation,
and some could add the master fader coefficient to the individual
fader coefficients pre summation. The two situations are quite
different regarding resolution and overload.

Also, the issue of fixed vs. floating point summation is an important
issue as well. The huge dynamic range of floating point may well make
the difference between a master fader implemented pre summation and
post summation pretty moot. Also, the very different clipping
properties of floating point and fixed point make master fader related
issues difficult to compare between systems. Internal word width
issues further complicate the situation. In the past several years,
we've had 24 bit fixed, 48 bit fixed, 32 bit float, 64 bit float, and
probably some other internal summing resolutions, and this too has to
matter at the end of the day.

Sure, the politics of the situation are sort of messy, but if we just
stick to the technical facts, I think the original statement needs a
little qualification in order to relate to anything that actually
exists. There are a lot of possibilities out there and not all of
them behave similarly.

In an ideal world, the review would have been different. However, the
one thing I have to say about Mix's "retraction" is that at least
they're stating in what context the reviewer's comments apply. Now,
whether the retraction was done by the reviewer or not is yet another
political matter that's really messy. If it wasn't, then it's an odd
situation. As a reviewer who's work is often edited by someone else,
it's always an uncomfortable situation to have your name on an article
that has been redone by someone else.

Yeah, the whole thing stinks, but back to the tech: you have to agree
that the resolution issue of DAW summation isn't really that cut and
dry, is it?

>Perhaps the digital resolution is not reduced in all DAWs, but it has been
>well established within the recording community that internally reducing a
>track fader will greatly reduce its audio quality. I suspect this was the
>intention of the reviewer's statement and would have probably served as a
>more suitable "retraction" than citing Digidesign's documentation.

Again, I don't think this is a industrywide truth across all possible
mixing hardware. Maybe among all of what's available now, but
honestly, has any of us disassembled the DSP code and had a look at it
directly? Or, found a high resolution FFT and prodded a mixer with
high quality signals? I honestly don't know what's actually done on
the various platforms, but I do know that there are a lot of
_possible_ ways to do it that behave very differently.

[snip]
>The bottom line is this. The Dangerous products are well designed, sound
>great, and can greatly improve the enjoyment of one's DAW. And seeing as
>the only measuring device that I use is actually attached to the sides of my
>head, you'll just have to take my word on that.

....but a fool who buys a Dangerous style system and uses it with a
crappy DAC and clock might not get such great results.

I think that speaking in terms of absolutes is really unwise,
especially with digital audio. I also find that a given process or
procedure is usually influenced by the particulars of implementation.
In other words, simply summing outside of the box is no guarantee of
much of anything, except how you have to connect your system to get it
to work. You can have great internal summing, poor internal summing,
great DACs, poor DACs, great analog summers, poor analog summers, and
any combination of the above. The ultimate performance of a mixing
system isn't really determined by the 'high concept' as much as it is
by everything else.


Interesting stuff,

Monte McGuire

[Arny Krueger]

"Monte P McGuire" > wrote in message


> Also, the issue of fixed vs. floating point summation is an important
> issue as well. The huge dynamic range of floating point may well make
> the difference between a master fader implemented pre summation and
> post summation pretty moot. Also, the very different clipping
> properties of floating point and fixed point make master fader related
> issues difficult to compare between systems. Internal word width
> issues further complicate the situation. In the past several years,
> we've had 24 bit fixed, 48 bit fixed, 32 bit float, 64 bit float, and
> probably some other internal summing resolutions, and this too has to
> matter at the end of the day.

I'm trying to figure out a legitimate complaint that could be hung on 32 bit
floating point mixing.

Claims like

"1,541 dB dynamic range is not enough for me, I prefer analog instead"

or

"The loss of detail that is more than 144 dB down gives me a headache"

just don't seem to wash.

[Roger W. Norman]

"Monte P McGuire" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I don't know how the original reviewer's statement could be true
> across all platforms and all possible summing algorithms in a DAW.

Think you missed or skipped over the point, Monte, which is Mix's retraction
position that any statements about DAWs can only be referenced to
Digidesign, which is obviously incorrect. Even if we take the top
manufacturers of quality DAW systems you'd still have to include a
retraction based on the way Sonic sees it and the way SADiE sees it,
Sequoia, Samplitude, SAW Studio, Pyramix and a number of other high dollar
DAW systems. I think it shows a severe slant from Mix's supposedly
objective opinions, and to use Digidesign to reference their product's
capability when the Digidesign line's capabilities were virtually not
mentioned in the article is misleading to readers and a slap in the face to
all those other fine products who weren't given a chance to air their
opinions on the matter.

Besides, it was a review on a Dangerous piece of hardware, not a slog at Pro
Tools. When I read the retraction I simply couldn't believe it and I no
longer subscribe to Mix.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[5016]

(Paul) wrote in message >...
> Wow, that is really unbelieveable. I've been using Nuendo for a whole
> bunch of years at my studio, and have used the Dangerous stuff since
> its been out.
>
> Its really very funny how people assume that Digidesign is the defacto
> standard for digital recording.

Well, unfortunately I suppose it is the defacto standard.


> Personally everytime I look at the
> price tag on pro tools, I think of all the wonderful things I've been
> able to do to improve my audio quality in place of that expense.

I bought a Nuendo system instead of ProTools and got a Neve Melbourn
with the difference. Which works much better for me.

>
> I'd give it time but I think that Digidesign house of cards is going
> to come tumbling down one day. There was a time when farm cards made
> pro tools worth the extra dough. Now with excellent add on DSP effects
> like the UAD-1 and high performance PCs, I really have a hard time
> seeing the benefit.

The benefit is exactly that of the de facto standard that you mention
above. If I was doing a lot of work that required moving stuff between
myself and other studios that used ProTools, then that would be more
important than the little Neve console. But I don't do a lot of that,
so it isn't.

To be honest, even when moving between different versions of Nuendo
and Cubase, I end up having to start from the raw WAV files as often
as not because of differences in versions and plug-ins used. So I'm
not sure how much compatibilty is worth in the real world.

I agree with you that at some time the house of cards will fall.
Generally, companies abusing market dominance positions fail in the
long run. However, I think that Steinberg has been underpricing their
products for some time to judge from their profitability level. In the
long run, their prices will have to rise (if they can't solve the
crack problem).

>
>
>
> Paul

[Mike]

"Mixerman" > wrote in message >...
> I sent this letter to the editor of Mix magazine, but they don't want to
> print the letter in its entirety. Further, they say they won't print what I
> can only assume to be some watered down version of the letter until the May
> issue. I sent the letter to them in January. Do they think I was born
> yesterday? They obviously underestimate the delivery power of the net. How
> typical of a print magazine.
>
>
>
> Here's the letter:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mix,
>
>
>
> I read the in-depth review of the Dangerous product line in your October
> issue. Although I felt the review had an overabundance of technical
> information, it was well written, on point regarding the shortcomings of
> DAWs in general, and very clear on how the Dangerous product line can
> drastically improve such shortcomings. Had I never read another Mix article
> again in my life, I would have walked away with a positive image of your
> magazine.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, I read the December issue.
>
>
>
> In the December issue, you managed to somehow "retract" your reviewer's
> statements on DAWs, which were about as controversial as stating the sky is
> blue. You replaced these general statements with the technical specs of one
> particular manufacturer's DAW. Given that, I found your "retractions" to be
> about as unbiased as Scott Peterson's Mom.
>
>
>
> Let's evaluate these "retractions."
>
>
>
> You first "retracted" the following: "Digital mixing and summing inside your
> DAW to stereo outputs requires that you do not overload the internal digital
> mixing bus by lowering all the mixer faders."
>
>
>
> Your "retraction" begins: "According to Digidesign's documentation.."
>
>
>
> According to Digidesign's documentation? The statement was made about DAWs
> in general -- not about a Digidesign product.
>
>
>
> In the very next sentence of the original article, the reviewer states:
> "When any track fader's level is internally reduced, its digital resolution
> is also reduced."
>
>
>
> Your retraction begins: "Digidesign states that the mixer inside Pro Tools
> is.."
>
>
>
> Again, where does the original statement discuss Digidesign or its product?
>
>
>
> Perhaps the digital resolution is not reduced in all DAWs, but it has been
> well established within the recording community that internally reducing a
> track fader will greatly reduce its audio quality. I suspect this was the
> intention of the reviewer's statement and would have probably served as a
> more suitable "retraction" than citing Digidesign's documentation.
>
>
>
> Next the reviewer states: "Spreading out a mix over many stems


What are you calling a stem?

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Roger W. Norman > wrote:
>"Monte P McGuire" > wrote in message
...
>> Well, I don't know how the original reviewer's statement could be true
>> across all platforms and all possible summing algorithms in a DAW.
>
>Think you missed or skipped over the point, Monte, which is Mix's retraction
>position that any statements about DAWs can only be referenced to
>Digidesign, which is obviously incorrect.

Yes, I probably missed the whole point, since I haven't read the
original review that the retraction refers to.

But, the tech of the topic is interesting, so that's why I replied.
I'll come back once I've done the homework and maybe it'll make more
sense to me!!

The politics sure are odd though, regardless of the tech.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[EganMedia]

<< Wow, that is really unbelieveable. I've been using Nuendo for a whole
bunch of years at my studio, and have used the Dangerous stuff since
its been out.

Its really very funny how people assume that Digidesign is the defacto
standard for digital recording. >><BR><BR>

Well, for the bulk of professional studios, Pro Tools IS the de facto standard.
And while Mixerman didn't mention Digi by name in his complaint, the fact that
they are the current 800 lb. Gorilla makes their rebuttal worth 800 lbs of
gorilla.

I agree that the editorial staff at MIX should have had the cojones to come up
with a scientific, or at least balanced response, but it's not like anyone
thinks an article in a trade rag is akin to an AES paper anyway.

It reminds me on the Milli Vanilli "scandal". I never, even for a second,
thought pop groups were responsible for their alleged "performances". I don't
expect any more from Mix than I do from N'Sync. Trade magazines are to
journalism what Entertainment Tonight is to the News Hour.



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Mixerman]

The review:
http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_dangerous_music_monitor/index.htm

The retractions:
http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_digital_mixing_clarification/index.htm

"This makes the total dynamic range 288 dB." (see retraction link above). A
tech that I know actually laughed aloud at this sentence. His explanation as
to why that was so funny seemed reasonable to me, but what the hell do I
know? I can barely argue the technical merits of toilet paper, although I
could tell you which feels the best. Tell me, is a 288db range possible? Can
you have a dynamic range of 288db?

This is what Digidesign claims.

True or untrue?

How about the rest of the "specs" as compiled by Mix magazine? True or
untrue?

Mixerman








"Monte P McGuire" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mixerman > wrote:
> [snip]
> >You first "retracted" the following: "Digital mixing and summing inside
your
> >DAW to stereo outputs requires that you do not overload the internal
digital
> >mixing bus by lowering all the mixer faders."
> >
> >Your "retraction" begins: "According to Digidesign's documentation.."
> >
> >According to Digidesign's documentation? The statement was made about
DAWs
> >in general -- not about a Digidesign product.
>
> Well, I don't know how the original reviewer's statement could be true
> across all platforms and all possible summing algorithms in a DAW.
> Some 'master fader' implementations could attenuate after summation,
> and some could add the master fader coefficient to the individual
> fader coefficients pre summation. The two situations are quite
> different regarding resolution and overload.
>
> Also, the issue of fixed vs. floating point summation is an important
> issue as well. The huge dynamic range of floating point may well make
> the difference between a master fader implemented pre summation and
> post summation pretty moot. Also, the very different clipping
> properties of floating point and fixed point make master fader related
> issues difficult to compare between systems. Internal word width
> issues further complicate the situation. In the past several years,
> we've had 24 bit fixed, 48 bit fixed, 32 bit float, 64 bit float, and
> probably some other internal summing resolutions, and this too has to
> matter at the end of the day.
>
> Sure, the politics of the situation are sort of messy, but if we just
> stick to the technical facts, I think the original statement needs a
> little qualification in order to relate to anything that actually
> exists. There are a lot of possibilities out there and not all of
> them behave similarly.
>
> In an ideal world, the review would have been different. However, the
> one thing I have to say about Mix's "retraction" is that at least
> they're stating in what context the reviewer's comments apply. Now,
> whether the retraction was done by the reviewer or not is yet another
> political matter that's really messy. If it wasn't, then it's an odd
> situation. As a reviewer who's work is often edited by someone else,
> it's always an uncomfortable situation to have your name on an article
> that has been redone by someone else.
>
> Yeah, the whole thing stinks, but back to the tech: you have to agree
> that the resolution issue of DAW summation isn't really that cut and
> dry, is it?
>
> >Perhaps the digital resolution is not reduced in all DAWs, but it has
been
> >well established within the recording community that internally reducing
a
> >track fader will greatly reduce its audio quality. I suspect this was
the
> >intention of the reviewer's statement and would have probably served as a
> >more suitable "retraction" than citing Digidesign's documentation.
>
> Again, I don't think this is a industrywide truth across all possible
> mixing hardware. Maybe among all of what's available now, but
> honestly, has any of us disassembled the DSP code and had a look at it
> directly? Or, found a high resolution FFT and prodded a mixer with
> high quality signals? I honestly don't know what's actually done on
> the various platforms, but I do know that there are a lot of
> _possible_ ways to do it that behave very differently.
>
> [snip]
> >The bottom line is this. The Dangerous products are well designed, sound
> >great, and can greatly improve the enjoyment of one's DAW. And seeing as
> >the only measuring device that I use is actually attached to the sides of
my
> >head, you'll just have to take my word on that.
>
> ...but a fool who buys a Dangerous style system and uses it with a
> crappy DAC and clock might not get such great results.
>
> I think that speaking in terms of absolutes is really unwise,
> especially with digital audio. I also find that a given process or
> procedure is usually influenced by the particulars of implementation.
> In other words, simply summing outside of the box is no guarantee of
> much of anything, except how you have to connect your system to get it
> to work. You can have great internal summing, poor internal summing,
> great DACs, poor DACs, great analog summers, poor analog summers, and
> any combination of the above. The ultimate performance of a mixing
> system isn't really determined by the 'high concept' as much as it is
> by everything else.
>
>
> Interesting stuff,
>
> Monte McGuire
>

[Jay - atldigi]

In article et>,
"michael cleary" > wrote:

> the smart play for mix would have been to just print a letter from
> digidesign. then they might not have come off looking like such sheep.
> Baaaa.
>

I would guess it was due to a complaint from digidesign, so a "letter
from digidesign" probably would have been the better way to proceed. It
seems to me to essentially be an unsigned letter from digidesign as it
stands; at least that's how I took it.

As for the possibility of 288 dB of dynamic range, it's certainly
possible to represent this inside the box with 48 bit fixed point math,
but there's no way to input or output an analog signal with that range.
It's essentially just computational overhead, but it is indeed welcome
to have 48 bit math happening in there for a variety of reasons.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Mixerman" > wrote in message

> The review:
> http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_dangerous_music_monitor/index.htm
>
> The retractions:
> http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_digital_mixing_clarification/index.htm
>
> "This makes the total dynamic range 288 dB." (see retraction link
> above). A tech that I know actually laughed aloud at this sentence.
> His explanation as to why that was so funny seemed reasonable to me,
> but what the hell do I know? I can barely argue the technical merits
> of toilet paper, although I could tell you which feels the best. Tell
> me, is a 288db range possible? Can you have a dynamic range of 288db?
>
> This is what Digidesign claims.
>
> True or untrue?
>
> How about the rest of the "specs" as compiled by Mix magazine? True or
> untrue?

A 32 bit floating point bus like that in Adobe Audition can have a dynamic
range of 1,541 dB. So, the question then is "How did Digidesign screw up and
only get 288 dB?"

;-)

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I agree that the editorial staff at MIX should have had the cojones to come up
> with a scientific, or at least balanced response, but it's not like anyone
> thinks an article in a trade rag is akin to an AES paper anyway.

I sometimes wonder about these magazines. Don't they review what's
written for publication for technical accuracy and makesensedness?
Back last Summer, I saw an announcement in the "New Products" section
of Mix for Trident's S120 Fader Pack which "features +500 dB headroom
and a theoretical minimum noise floor." This came straight out of a
press release that was written by John Oram. John, being the character
that he is, was just being cute ("The press release was dated April
1." he said to me when I asked him about it).

If I was the Technical Editor of the magazine, I would have called him
to say "There must be a typo in your press release. We'll publish it
when you send us a correction." But they just published it as is.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> A 32 bit floating point bus like that in Adobe Audition can have a dynamic
> range of 1,541 dB. So, the question then is "How did Digidesign screw up and
> only get 288 dB?"
> ;-)

The didn't want to mislead the customers with unrealistic and purely
theoretical numbers? <g>



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[NewYorkDave]

Let's see... According to my calculator, 288dB of dynamic range equals
a ratio of 251188643200000 to 1. No wonder your friend laughed...

It's a bit of a red herring on Digi's part, anyway, since their
figures refer to internal processing. At the end of the chain, the
signal is still spit out of real world DACs with their real world
limitations. And I think that the "sound" of internal DAW mixing has
more to do with how the processor is performing the addition. A number
of things happen when you sum complex waveforms in an electronic
circuit; perhaps the summing algorithm in the DAW is performing
addition that is a bit too cut-and-dry perfect and thus, subjectively,
lacks the perceived depth and interest of an analog mix. It's hard to
argue with the number of upper-tier professionals who hear an
improvement when they fan out their DAW outputs to the analog board of
their choice. I'd be surprised if you could chalk it all up to hype.

So, if the Dangerous box is rated at .005% THD and a noise floor at
-80dBU (which translates to .000129 volts RMS), that's well ****ing
below the threshold of anybody's perception, golden ears or not. What
I don't get is why Digi feels the need to "defend" themselves against
anything, or to cast aspersions on Dangerous or other manufacturers of
external summing boxes. If someone is making an accessory that makes
YOUR product more attractive to potential customers, why slam it? I'm
sure there are many who would not buy PT if they didn't have the
option of a Dangerous or Folcrom box. If you have to continue to go
through the big console, you have to ponder if it's not a bad idea to
just keep on using the old multitrack.

Digi needs to recognize that there are people who just don't like the
sound of internal mixing, and they can't wish that away or explain it
away. They should be glad for the external summing boxes, even if they
consider them snake oil; they keep these customers happy.

The Mix Magazine "clarification" was indeed a disgusting display of
toadyism. I feel bad for whichever intern or junior editor had to put
her name on that travesty.


--Dave

--Dave



"Mixerman" > wrote in message >...
> The review:
> http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_dangerous_music_monitor/index.htm
>
> The retractions:
> http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_digital_mixing_clarification/index.htm
>
> "This makes the total dynamic range 288 dB." (see retraction link above). A
> tech that I know actually laughed aloud at this sentence. His explanation as
> to why that was so funny seemed reasonable to me, but what the hell do I
> know? I can barely argue the technical merits of toilet paper, although I
> could tell you which feels the best. Tell me, is a 288db range possible? Can
> you have a dynamic range of 288db?
>
> This is what Digidesign claims.
>
> True or untrue?
>
> How about the rest of the "specs" as compiled by Mix magazine? True or
> untrue?
>
> Mixerman

[WideGlide]

<< I don't get is why Digi feels the need to "defend" themselves... If
someone is making an accessory that makes YOUR product more attractive to
potential customers, why slam it?...>>
---------------------

Well, the mere notion that one "needs" an external accessory made by a
different manufacturer to improve the quality is something that Digi I'm
sure does not like. Pro Tools is expensive enough as it is. If everyone
believes that in addition to Pro Tools you ALSO need some kind of analog
mixer in order to get the "best sound quality", this may discourage people
from taking the plunge on Pro Tools at all. Many might feel that if they
are going to "need" an analog summing set-up anyway with a DAW, they may as
well get a less expensive DAW.

The fact that analog summing boxes exist for DAWs is somewhat living proof
that many people believe that DAWs, by themselves, are not adequate. So it
makes sense that Digi, manufacturers of DAWs, would love to kill off this
common belief (whether it's true or not).

Personally... I haven't done too much testing yet, but after mixing in
analog for a long time, I had a chance to record and mix all on a Digi-001
at one point (a while ago when the 001 first came out). This was before I
ever heard anything about the whole "digital summing" issue, and before the
Dangerous even existed on the market, etc. Once my mix was done, it was
very obvious to me that there was some quality to that recording / mix that
was just not cool... quite different than what I was used to. I was not
happy. Was it the converters, the summing, the "cheap" Digirack plug-ins,
etc?... I don't know... but the point is, going from analog to that DAW was
a significant experience, and I knew that I did not want to record and mix
all inside that thing again. Something bad happened to the audio. Since I
already had an analog mixer and a lot of analog outboard and outboard
effects, I started using all the analog stuff along with the 001 just as a
way to attempt to recapture the type of sound I was previously used to...
and it helped a lot. I guess I wasn't the only person to have this
experience.

Having said that, whether or not the digital summing etc is good or bad, I
must admit that I love the Pro Tools software. I have yet to see software
that can beat it, at least if you do very heavy serious audio work, serious
editing, etc. I am impressed by some of the other softwares, but they still
don't beat Pro Tools... in my opinion.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1078841951k@trad

> In article >
> writes:

>> A 32 bit floating point bus like that in Adobe Audition can have a
>> dynamic range of 1,541 dB. So, the question then is "How did
>> Digidesign screw up and only get 288 dB?"
>> ;-)

> The didn't want to mislead the customers with unrealistic and purely
> theoretical numbers? <g>

Agreed.

In reality
http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_digital_mixing_clarification/index.htm
explains how they got *only* 288 dB of dynamic range - their mixing bus is
48 bit fixed point.

[Roger W. Norman]

They didn't do 32 bit floating point. About 5 or more years ago I did a
week long test of SADiE and I was amazed that they talked about 1550 dB
headroom (don't know where they got the figure, but it's close) in mixing,
meaning that you virtually could NOT saturate the mix bus, and pretty much,
with normal mixing procedures, I found that to be true. This was way before
cramming everything up into the last 1 dB of headroom, and it sounded
awfully good. This was version 3 of their software/hardware. I didn't go
for it because it was some $7k without the computer and $12K with, but I
have to admit, it was the best sounding digital computer system I've heard.

Oh, and Arny, hit me with an email because I've got a little information on
the A64 that you might find interesting.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Mixerman" > wrote in message
>
> > The review:
> > http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_dangerous_music_monitor/index.htm
> >
> > The retractions:
> > http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_digital_mixing_clarification/index.htm
> >
> > "This makes the total dynamic range 288 dB." (see retraction link
> > above). A tech that I know actually laughed aloud at this sentence.
> > His explanation as to why that was so funny seemed reasonable to me,
> > but what the hell do I know? I can barely argue the technical merits
> > of toilet paper, although I could tell you which feels the best. Tell
> > me, is a 288db range possible? Can you have a dynamic range of 288db?
> >
> > This is what Digidesign claims.
> >
> > True or untrue?
> >
> > How about the rest of the "specs" as compiled by Mix magazine? True or
> > untrue?
>
> A 32 bit floating point bus like that in Adobe Audition can have a dynamic
> range of 1,541 dB. So, the question then is "How did Digidesign screw up
and
> only get 288 dB?"
>
> ;-)
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

288 dB of headroom isn't a red herring, it's just a different measurement
based on fixed point vs floating. For some reason the Mac world has always
adhered to the idea that integer math was more precise, and since they have
numerous applications that are math specific, one might tend to agree. But
in audio it's a matter of hearing the results, not seeing a straight line on
a graphic, and then it's a totally different animal.

Then again, even back in the days of the venerable 8088, and 8088 floating
point processor could handle math more precisely than a 6800 without a math
co-processor. I think it can probably be traced back to the original 6502
used in the Atari computers, which used a 6512 math co-processor in their
display unit to get those neat color shifting patterns in the faucet that
dripped water. Of course, the 6502 had other computers that didn't do
much.....

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"NewYorkDave" > wrote in message
om...
> Let's see... According to my calculator, 288dB of dynamic range equals
> a ratio of 251188643200000 to 1. No wonder your friend laughed...
>
> It's a bit of a red herring on Digi's part, anyway, since their
> figures refer to internal processing. At the end of the chain, the
> signal is still spit out of real world DACs with their real world
> limitations. And I think that the "sound" of internal DAW mixing has
> more to do with how the processor is performing the addition. A number
> of things happen when you sum complex waveforms in an electronic
> circuit; perhaps the summing algorithm in the DAW is performing
> addition that is a bit too cut-and-dry perfect and thus, subjectively,
> lacks the perceived depth and interest of an analog mix. It's hard to
> argue with the number of upper-tier professionals who hear an
> improvement when they fan out their DAW outputs to the analog board of
> their choice. I'd be surprised if you could chalk it all up to hype.
>
> So, if the Dangerous box is rated at .005% THD and a noise floor at
> -80dBU (which translates to .000129 volts RMS), that's well ****ing
> below the threshold of anybody's perception, golden ears or not. What
> I don't get is why Digi feels the need to "defend" themselves against
> anything, or to cast aspersions on Dangerous or other manufacturers of
> external summing boxes. If someone is making an accessory that makes
> YOUR product more attractive to potential customers, why slam it? I'm
> sure there are many who would not buy PT if they didn't have the
> option of a Dangerous or Folcrom box. If you have to continue to go
> through the big console, you have to ponder if it's not a bad idea to
> just keep on using the old multitrack.
>
> Digi needs to recognize that there are people who just don't like the
> sound of internal mixing, and they can't wish that away or explain it
> away. They should be glad for the external summing boxes, even if they
> consider them snake oil; they keep these customers happy.
>
> The Mix Magazine "clarification" was indeed a disgusting display of
> toadyism. I feel bad for whichever intern or junior editor had to put
> her name on that travesty.
>
>
> --Dave
>
> --Dave
>
>
>
> "Mixerman" > wrote in message
>...
> > The review:
> > http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_dangerous_music_monitor/index.htm
> >
> > The retractions:
> > http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_digital_mixing_clarification/index.htm
> >
> > "This makes the total dynamic range 288 dB." (see retraction link
above). A
> > tech that I know actually laughed aloud at this sentence. His
explanation as
> > to why that was so funny seemed reasonable to me, but what the hell do I
> > know? I can barely argue the technical merits of toilet paper, although
I
> > could tell you which feels the best. Tell me, is a 288db range possible?
Can
> > you have a dynamic range of 288db?
> >
> > This is what Digidesign claims.
> >
> > True or untrue?
> >
> > How about the rest of the "specs" as compiled by Mix magazine? True or
> > untrue?
> >
> > Mixerman

[Don Cooper]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> I sometimes wonder about these magazines. Don't they review what's
> written for publication for technical accuracy and makesensedness?
> Back last Summer, I saw an announcement in the "New Products" section
> of Mix for Trident's S120 Fader Pack which "features +500 dB headroom
> and a theoretical minimum noise floor." This came straight out of a
> press release that was written by John Oram. John, being the character
> that he is, was just being cute ("The press release was dated April
> 1." he said to me when I asked him about it).
>
> If I was the Technical Editor of the magazine, I would have called him
> to say "There must be a typo in your press release. We'll publish it
> when you send us a correction." But they just published it as is.


I regularly used to place ads in said magazine, and one time I had a
last minute addition to an ad I had already submitted. I added one
product - a TEAC DAT machine. The spelled it "TEAK".


Don

[Don Cooper]

GoobAudio wrote:

> I was going to subscribe to mix. Thanks for saving me the money, I am not a
> digi person and I sure do not want a digi editor.


Get it for free. Well worth the price.


Don

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> If I was the Technical Editor of the magazine, I would have called him
> to say "There must be a typo in your press release. We'll publish it
> when you send us a correction." But they just published it as is.

Go lookin' for an April fool, and what do you 'xpect?

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> A 32 bit floating point bus like that in Adobe Audition can have a dynamic
> range of 1,541 dB. So, the question then is "How did Digidesign screw up and
> only get 288 dB?"

Too much L1.

--
ha

[unitron]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message >...
---snip---
>
> Then again, even back in the days of the venerable 8088, and 8088 floating
> point processor could handle math more precisely than a 6800 without a math
> co-processor

---snip---

I'm pretty sure you mean the 8087 floating point processor or math co-processor.

[Roger W. Norman]

"unitron" > wrote in message
m...
> I'm pretty sure you mean the 8087 floating point processor or math
co-processor.

Yeah, but sometimes I don't proofread my typing. Most of the time I do.
Sometimes things get through. Not hard to hit 8088 when you meant 8087. At
least I didn't start with 6502 processors in the message! <g> I think I
might still have an Atari 800 around here somewhere, with a whooping 48 K of
ram and TWO disk drives.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio