Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Neil's Scope summing examples posted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77804 is a reply to message #77771] |
Tue, 02 January 2007 19:07   |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I saw on the planetz forum DJ mentioned there were some summing tests
that
>>>Neil did posted here yet I can't find them.
>>>
>>>Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>>
>>There's just this one posted so far... I've got a couple others
>>almost ready.
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/DracoClip-ITBvsStemm edIntoPulsar.mp3
>>
>>Neil
>
>Neil,
>
>Can you give a little info on the process here. I deffinatly see and hear
>the Pulsar mix (second one) is about 1-1.5db louder rms wise and overall
>it seems a bit more open (but I didn't compare at equal voluke yet).
>
>Anyways I'd like to recreate this and see what I come up with.
Jesse... here's what I did - it's the same mix on both cuts,
but I did have to do a couple things differently in order to
stem it out into 4 stereo submixes to sum it in Pulsar. The
Native (CubaseSX) ITB mix had a limiter on the 2-buss - it was
the limiter from Izotope's Ozone - which is a very good quality
transparent limiter, so not being able to insert a vst plugin
across the Pulsar 2-buss, I used their mastering limiter in
Optimaster, set to the same settings, which was basically at -2
or -3 db threshhold... very light, just keeping any peaks from
going over, basically & maybe smacking down some of the bigger
hits a bit, in the case of both mixes.. Then I split the mix in
Cubase into four stereo submixes going out via lightpipe...
across each of these submixes I inserted a transparent peakstop
limiter just to make sure I had no digital overs. On the drum
submix there were only a handful of overs across the entire
song, and across the lo-end submix there were even fewer, just
3 or 4 IIRC, the other two busses had no overs registered , but
I left the limiters on those just to be safe - in all those
cases, the limiters were set for "0" threshhold, and -0.03
output level, so they were hardly affecting the sound, if even
at all.
That's it, really. I split the mix as follows to go into Pulsar:
Submix #1: Drums & Drum Room 'verb
Submix #2: Bass, Lo-end Keys, and Rhy. Guitars (no verbs or
delays)
Submix #3: Hi-end keys, most all other guitars (no verbs or
delays)
Submix #4: Vocals, any solo or fill instr. that weren't on #2
or #3 and all reverbs & delays except for the one for the drums.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77819 is a reply to message #77804] |
Wed, 03 January 2007 05:22 |
Jesse Skeens
Messages: 53
Registered: November 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Jesse... here's what I did - it's the same mix on both cuts,
>but I did have to do a couple things differently in order to
>stem it out into 4 stereo submixes to sum it in Pulsar. The
>Native (CubaseSX) ITB mix had a limiter on the 2-buss - it was
>the limiter from Izotope's Ozone - which is a very good quality
>transparent limiter, so not being able to insert a vst plugin
>across the Pulsar 2-buss, I used their mastering limiter in
>Optimaster, set to the same settings, which was basically at -2
>or -3 db threshhold... very light, just keeping any peaks from
>going over, basically & maybe smacking down some of the bigger
>hits a bit, in the case of both mixes.. Then I split the mix in
>Cubase into four stereo submixes going out via lightpipe...
>across each of these submixes I inserted a transparent peakstop
>limiter just to make sure I had no digital overs. On the drum
>submix there were only a handful of overs across the entire
>song, and across the lo-end submix there were even fewer, just
>3 or 4 IIRC, the other two busses had no overs registered , but
>I left the limiters on those just to be safe - in all those
>cases, the limiters were set for "0" threshhold, and -0.03
>output level, so they were hardly affecting the sound, if even
>at all.
>
>That's it, really. I split the mix as follows to go into Pulsar:
>
>Submix #1: Drums & Drum Room 'verb
>Submix #2: Bass, Lo-end Keys, and Rhy. Guitars (no verbs or
>delays)
>Submix #3: Hi-end keys, most all other guitars (no verbs or
>delays)
>Submix #4: Vocals, any solo or fill instr. that weren't on #2
>or #3 and all reverbs & delays except for the one for the drums.
>
>Neil
Neil,
Thnaks for the info. I would like to hear a test on more fair ground though.
Removing the limiters and either letting the overs happen or lowering the
mix so they aren't present.
I'm actually finding I get more transparent results just clipping SX than
I do using limiters, even great ones. I recently had a mix that sounded
nice and loud and punchy but was clipping SX's bus. So when it came time
to actually bounce it I lowered the master and applied limiting instead.
Turns out the mix sounded much better without the limiting and just clipped.
Do you have any intention on doing a comparison with the limiters removed
from the equation?
Thanks,
Jesse
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77822 is a reply to message #77819] |
Wed, 03 January 2007 07:38 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>Neil,
>
>Thnaks for the info. I would like to hear a test on more fair ground though.
>Removing the limiters and either letting the overs happen or
>lowering the mix so they aren't present.
You can call it fair, you can call it unfair - having limiters
that are barely kissing the peaks isn't going to affect the
depth & detail to the degree you're hearing the diference in
these two files. If I lowered the gain on the sumbixes then
someone would say it's unfair because I didn't have as hot of a
level set going to Pulsar. All I can do is the closest
comparison possible, and this is it, IMO. If anything, having
the limiters on the out-busses from Cubase into Pulsar would
tend to CLOUD the mix if they weren't transparent, rather than
clarifying it - how do you explain that? You can't. If I took
the limiters off, and had some heat going into the lightpipes,
then someone would say that THAT wasn't fair because I had clips
going out into Pulsar & that made the Pulsar mix "brighter &
more present", whereas the 32-bit architecture in the ITB
Cubase mix handled those overs in a difference manner. I guess
there's really no point in me doing any more of these -
everyone can just go buy their own Pulsar card now & see for
themselves if they find it useful or not.
>I'm actually finding I get more transparent results just
>clipping SX than I do using limiters, even great ones.
I hate clipping in SX, personally - if you like it, then go for
it. Poor management of gain structure in Native scenarios is
part the problem with summing issues therein, IMO - I'm not
saying you can't get a good mix out a pure Native ITB
situation; in fact, I've argued that point ad nauseum herein &
even some weeks ago posted some examples of the same mix summed
ITB in Cubase; Stemmed out into five sumbmix files, them
reimported into a new project in Cubase; and also summed in
Paris (no limiting across the submixes there, because I was
going into Paris via analog, not digital), and while there were
definite distinctions between the three, there was also no
consensus that one mix stood out as being better than the
other. If you're clipping stuff & liking the results, then who
am I to criticize, but personally I think you're doing yourself
a disservice by having 44,1000 mistakes per second in your songs
if you're redlining the 2-bus, multiplied by however many tracks
you've got going if you're redlining there, as well. If you
like that kind of math, then go for it; personally, I don't.
>Do you have any intention on doing a comparison with the
>limiters removed from the equation?
Do your own - I'm not trying to gain converts here and I'm not
trying to prove a favored position... I've just been posting
some findings & my observations & clips of one thing or another
so people who might be interested in this stuff could benefit
from hearing the differences before they fork over the money.
I could care fucking less if they agree with me or not, and now
I'm frankly tired of one person saying I rigged an earlier test
one way or another because I wasn't "pushing Paris like it
should be pushed", and another accusing me of hiding things
because I didn't tell people in advance which version was which
(well, than that wouldn't have been a true a/b, would it?),
and someone telling me that the reason a Cubase ITB mix clip I
posted that sounded better than another band done in the same
musical genre but in PTHD & mixed through an SSL, sounded
better in Cubase because I didn't know how to use an
SSL....What the mother-fucking fuck is that???? Now you're
saying you want to hear this on "more fair ground", and
asking: "do you have any intention of...?".
The answer is: "No, I have no more intentions of...". Build
your own damn summing rig & do your own damn tests...
I'm not the Berklee College of Mixdowns here, ferchrissakes!
Where's my coffee?
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77823 is a reply to message #77822] |
Wed, 03 January 2007 08:38 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>I'm not the Berklee College of Mixdowns here, ferchrissakes!<
LOL!!!!.........sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the
Tyrannosaurus Rex.
..........c'mon over and I'll brew you a cup of my organic
Tthree Mile Island Thermonuclear.and we can try some summing experiments
using coconut shells and hemp twine.
;o)
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:459bbff3$1@linux...
>
> "Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Neil,
>>
>>Thnaks for the info. I would like to hear a test on more fair ground
>>though.
>>Removing the limiters and either letting the overs happen or
>>lowering the mix so they aren't present.
>
> You can call it fair, you can call it unfair - having limiters
> that are barely kissing the peaks isn't going to affect the
> depth & detail to the degree you're hearing the diference in
> these two files. If I lowered the gain on the sumbixes then
> someone would say it's unfair because I didn't have as hot of a
> level set going to Pulsar. All I can do is the closest
> comparison possible, and this is it, IMO. If anything, having
> the limiters on the out-busses from Cubase into Pulsar would
> tend to CLOUD the mix if they weren't transparent, rather than
> clarifying it - how do you explain that? You can't. If I took
> the limiters off, and had some heat going into the lightpipes,
> then someone would say that THAT wasn't fair because I had clips
> going out into Pulsar & that made the Pulsar mix "brighter &
> more present", whereas the 32-bit architecture in the ITB
> Cubase mix handled those overs in a difference manner. I guess
> there's really no point in me doing any more of these -
> everyone can just go buy their own Pulsar card now & see for
> themselves if they find it useful or not.
>
>>I'm actually finding I get more transparent results just
>>clipping SX than I do using limiters, even great ones.
>
> I hate clipping in SX, personally - if you like it, then go for
> it. Poor management of gain structure in Native scenarios is
> part the problem with summing issues therein, IMO - I'm not
> saying you can't get a good mix out a pure Native ITB
> situation; in fact, I've argued that point ad nauseum herein &
> even some weeks ago posted some examples of the same mix summed
> ITB in Cubase; Stemmed out into five sumbmix files, them
> reimported into a new project in Cubase; and also summed in
> Paris (no limiting across the submixes there, because I was
> going into Paris via analog, not digital), and while there were
> definite distinctions between the three, there was also no
> consensus that one mix stood out as being better than the
> other. If you're clipping stuff & liking the results, then who
> am I to criticize, but personally I think you're doing yourself
> a disservice by having 44,1000 mistakes per second in your songs
> if you're redlining the 2-bus, multiplied by however many tracks
> you've got going if you're redlining there, as well. If you
> like that kind of math, then go for it; personally, I don't.
>
>>Do you have any intention on doing a comparison with the
>>limiters removed from the equation?
>
> Do your own - I'm not trying to gain converts here and I'm not
> trying to prove a favored position... I've just been posting
> some findings & my observations & clips of one thing or another
> so people who might be interested in this stuff could benefit
> from hearing the differences before they fork over the money.
> I could care fucking less if they agree with me or not, and now
> I'm frankly tired of one person saying I rigged an earlier test
> one way or another because I wasn't "pushing Paris like it
> should be pushed", and another accusing me of hiding things
> because I didn't tell people in advance which version was which
> (well, than that wouldn't have been a true a/b, would it?),
> and someone telling me that the reason a Cubase ITB mix clip I
> posted that sounded better than another band done in the same
> musical genre but in PTHD & mixed through an SSL, sounded
> better in Cubase because I didn't know how to use an
> SSL....What the mother-fucking fuck is that???? Now you're
> saying you want to hear this on "more fair ground", and
> asking: "do you have any intention of...?".
>
> The answer is: "No, I have no more intentions of...". Build
> your own damn summing rig & do your own damn tests...
> I'm not the Berklee College of Mixdowns here, ferchrissakes!
>
> Where's my coffee?
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77825 is a reply to message #77822] |
Wed, 03 January 2007 09:49 |
Jesse Skeens
Messages: 53
Registered: November 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Neil,
>You can call it fair, you can call it unfair - having limiters
>that are barely kissing the peaks isn't going to affect the
>depth & detail to the degree you're hearing the diference in
>these two files. If I lowered the gain on the sumbixes then
>someone would say it's unfair because I didn't have as hot of a
>level set going to Pulsar. All I can do is the closest
>comparison possible, and this is it, IMO. If anything, having
>the limiters on the out-busses from Cubase into Pulsar would
>tend to CLOUD the mix if they weren't transparent, rather than
>clarifying it - how do you explain that? You can't. If I took
>the limiters off, and had some heat going into the lightpipes,
>then someone would say that THAT wasn't fair because I had clips
>going out into Pulsar & that made the Pulsar mix "brighter &
>more present", whereas the 32-bit architecture in the ITB
>Cubase mix handled those overs in a difference manner.
I do think the limiters (and quite possible more to do with Optimaster) have
affected the test. The RMS level in the SCOPE version was as I said about
1-1.5db higher. We all know louder sounds better generally with this sort
of thing.
And using limiters doesnt make the test any more meaningful than just letting
it clip. Whether a limiter squashes a peak or if you just let it clip you're
still sending hot signals that have been converted to integer format down
the lightpipe. In comparison it sounds like the SX mix didnt have any limiting
until the final 2 buss, correct me if I'm wrong.
If anything maybe what you've shown here is that it sounds better to limit
a mix over a course of 4 stereo busses instead of just the master fader.
That could explain why its more open, less stuff like drums triggering the
dynamics of guitars, vocals etc..
Although not sure if you mentioned this but when you bounced the SX version
did you have the peakstop limiters still turned on (the ones you used prior
to sending out to Pulsar)?
Also when you used the Optimaster did you have it in multiband mode? I know
from experience it can deffinatly liven up a mix.
Why not just make a mix that doesnt peak in the first place and use that.
Then you can forgoe all this limiting affecting the sound. If the test
is meant to cover summing then the absense of peaks in the mix shouldn't
make a difference.
Saturation/limiting and summing are two different issues...
>I guess
>there's really no point in me doing any more of these -
>everyone can just go buy their own Pulsar card now & see for
>themselves if they find it useful or not.
Neil,
Sorry if I came across as critizing your test. I understand you don't owe
anybody info beyond what you have sought for your own needs in the first
place. Just so you know I own a Pulsar sysyem, for about 4 years now so
I can and will do my own tests. I was just curious if you had planned anymore,
I'm not suggesting you should on my or anyone else's behaf.
>
>>I'm actually finding I get more transparent results just
>>clipping SX than I do using limiters, even great ones.
>
>I hate clipping in SX, personally - if you like it, then go for
>it.
Clipping in software is clipping no matter where its done unless the particular
software is designed to limit via some sort of complex algorithm. Paris,
SX, Logic etc... all just flat top the peaks, nothing special or different.
Now the old way some software (like Paris's native mode)handled overs was
to wrap around signals which did sound bad. Hence the bad name clipping
digital intialy got.
>Poor management of gain structure in Native scenarios is
>part the problem with summing issues therein, IMO - I'm not
>saying you can't get a good mix out a pure Native ITB
>situation; in fact, I've argued that point ad nauseum herein &
>even some weeks ago posted some examples of the same mix summed
>ITB in Cubase; Stemmed out into five sumbmix files, them
>reimported into a new project in Cubase; and also summed in
>Paris (no limiting across the submixes there, because I was
>going into Paris via analog, not digital), and while there were
>definite distinctions between the three, there was also no
>consensus that one mix stood out as being better than the
>other. If you're clipping stuff & liking the results, then who
>am I to criticize, but personally I think you're doing yourself
>a disservice by having 44,1000 mistakes per second in your songs
>if you're redlining the 2-bus, multiplied by however many tracks
>you've got going if you're redlining there, as well. If you
>like that kind of math, then go for it; personally, I don't.
Well it matters what you define a "mistake" then. Hard clipping can be much
more transparent than a limiter which in most cases imposes an envelope upon
the signal. My SX example showed that. And everyone who has ever "pushed"
Paris into the red has used the same exact clipping as what I'm talking about.
All Paris did was clip transients, SX does the exact same thing. Now perhaps
Paris has other things going for it, but when it comes to saturation they
are doing the same thing.
>>Do you have any intention on doing a comparison with the
>>limiters removed from the equation?
>
>Do your own - I'm not trying to gain converts here and I'm not
>trying to prove a favored position... I've just been posting
>some findings & my observations & clips of one thing or another
>so people who might be interested in this stuff could benefit
>from hearing the differences before they fork over the money.
>I could care fucking less if they agree with me or not, and now
>I'm frankly tired of one person saying I rigged an earlier test
>one way or another because I wasn't "pushing Paris like it
>should be pushed", and another accusing me of hiding things
>because I didn't tell people in advance which version was which
>(well, than that wouldn't have been a true a/b, would it?),
>and someone telling me that the reason a Cubase ITB mix clip I
>posted that sounded better than another band done in the same
>musical genre but in PTHD & mixed through an SSL, sounded
>better in Cubase because I didn't know how to use an
>SSL....What the mother-fucking fuck is that???? Now you're
>saying you want to hear this on "more fair ground", and
>asking: "do you have any intention of...?".
As I explained earlier these comments weren't meant to be taken like that.
It seems some of your tests were meant for more subjective comparisons.
But with this one I feel like to truly test the summing you'd have to take
care of some of the variables here.
But again if you think you've learnt something useful from these tests more
power to you. What bothers me is then the results of this get posted on
forums, (such as Planetz) etc.. as "summing" tests and then people end up
forming an opinion based of it and spread it around when its not really testing
summing in its pure form.
Jesse
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77829 is a reply to message #77822] |
Wed, 03 January 2007 11:26 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Neil,
While I disagreed strongly with your initial reaction/attitude to Pulsar
stuff, I agree completely here. People, Neil is trying to give out useful
information for free. If you think the tests could be improved, feel free
to approve them. It's like free software projects where someone complains
that a certain feature is really crucial but missing. The maintainer responds,
'Patches always welcome.'
TCB
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Neil,
>>
>>Thnaks for the info. I would like to hear a test on more fair ground though.
>>Removing the limiters and either letting the overs happen or
>>lowering the mix so they aren't present.
>
>You can call it fair, you can call it unfair - having limiters
>that are barely kissing the peaks isn't going to affect the
>depth & detail to the degree you're hearing the diference in
>these two files. If I lowered the gain on the sumbixes then
>someone would say it's unfair because I didn't have as hot of a
>level set going to Pulsar. All I can do is the closest
>comparison possible, and this is it, IMO. If anything, having
>the limiters on the out-busses from Cubase into Pulsar would
>tend to CLOUD the mix if they weren't transparent, rather than
>clarifying it - how do you explain that? You can't. If I took
>the limiters off, and had some heat going into the lightpipes,
>then someone would say that THAT wasn't fair because I had clips
>going out into Pulsar & that made the Pulsar mix "brighter &
>more present", whereas the 32-bit architecture in the ITB
>Cubase mix handled those overs in a difference manner. I guess
>there's really no point in me doing any more of these -
>everyone can just go buy their own Pulsar card now & see for
>themselves if they find it useful or not.
>
>>I'm actually finding I get more transparent results just
>>clipping SX than I do using limiters, even great ones.
>
>I hate clipping in SX, personally - if you like it, then go for
>it. Poor management of gain structure in Native scenarios is
>part the problem with summing issues therein, IMO - I'm not
>saying you can't get a good mix out a pure Native ITB
>situation; in fact, I've argued that point ad nauseum herein &
>even some weeks ago posted some examples of the same mix summed
>ITB in Cubase; Stemmed out into five sumbmix files, them
>reimported into a new project in Cubase; and also summed in
>Paris (no limiting across the submixes there, because I was
>going into Paris via analog, not digital), and while there were
>definite distinctions between the three, there was also no
>consensus that one mix stood out as being better than the
>other. If you're clipping stuff & liking the results, then who
>am I to criticize, but personally I think you're doing yourself
>a disservice by having 44,1000 mistakes per second in your songs
>if you're redlining the 2-bus, multiplied by however many tracks
>you've got going if you're redlining there, as well. If you
>like that kind of math, then go for it; personally, I don't.
>
>>Do you have any intention on doing a comparison with the
>>limiters removed from the equation?
>
>Do your own - I'm not trying to gain converts here and I'm not
>trying to prove a favored position... I've just been posting
>some findings & my observations & clips of one thing or another
>so people who might be interested in this stuff could benefit
>from hearing the differences before they fork over the money.
>I could care fucking less if they agree with me or not, and now
>I'm frankly tired of one person saying I rigged an earlier test
>one way or another because I wasn't "pushing Paris like it
>should be pushed", and another accusing me of hiding things
>because I didn't tell people in advance which version was which
>(well, than that wouldn't have been a true a/b, would it?),
>and someone telling me that the reason a Cubase ITB mix clip I
>posted that sounded better than another band done in the same
>musical genre but in PTHD & mixed through an SSL, sounded
>better in Cubase because I didn't know how to use an
>SSL....What the mother-fucking fuck is that???? Now you're
>saying you want to hear this on "more fair ground", and
>asking: "do you have any intention of...?".
>
>The answer is: "No, I have no more intentions of...". Build
>your own damn summing rig & do your own damn tests...
>I'm not the Berklee College of Mixdowns here, ferchrissakes!
>
>Where's my coffee?
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77838 is a reply to message #77825] |
Wed, 03 January 2007 20:30 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I do think the limiters (and quite possible more to do with
>Optimaster) have affected the test. The RMS level in the
>SCOPE version was as I said about 1-1.5db higher. We all know
>louder sounds better generally with this sort of thing.
Louder doesn't sound wider & clearer, plus what if I had
reduced power on the Pulsar mix so that the RMS levels were
identical, then I would've been accused of manipulating THAT
in some unfair manner... you know, I didn't realize there was
going to be a fucking test or else I would've maybe studied
more back in grade school.
You need to do three things:
1.) Go read my reply to your post on the Pulsar forum - if
you're going to use my name in public & state that I said
something, you'd better be fucking clear about what it is that I
stated, and not leave out information or infer something as you
did therein.
2.) Do your own comparison & arrive at your own conclusion -
I'm sure you're the OOOONLY one who can do this "fairly"
and "without a difference" between the two.
3.) Send me a check if I am to give you any more teutelage, or
if you want any more of your questions answered... my open rate
is $100 an hour.
As I've said, I don't have a dog in this race, and I'm
not "Pimpin' for Pulsar", so WHY WOULD I SKEW THE TESTS????
And now to paraphrase that famous barbershop scene in 'Coming
to America': "Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you...
who's next!?!?"
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77839 is a reply to message #77829] |
Wed, 03 January 2007 20:41 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Neil,
>
>While I disagreed strongly with your initial reaction/attitude to Pulsar
>stuff, I agree completely here. People, Neil is trying to give out useful
>information for free. If you think the tests could be improved, feel free
>to approve them. It's like free software projects where someone complains
>that a certain feature is really crucial but missing. The maintainer responds,
>'Patches always welcome.'
Thanks Thad, I appreciate it (fucking ingrates!).
What did you disagree strongly with me about?
a.) That the Pulsar reps misrepresented their product, or just
don't know it as well as they should?
b.) That they will whine if you mention this to them?
c.) That the platform doesn't sync to a not-so-uncommon
samplerate & will temporarily render your system a little bit
fucked-over if you try this.
d.) That I think the Pulsar Plugins are very clean, but rather
so-so & kinda "plain vanilla", for the most part?
e.) That six SHARC chips render a remarkably low level of DSP
power at samplerates over 48k, perhaps explaining their
staunch defense on their forum of 44.1k as the samplerate to
use, contrary to everyone else in the industry who makes
multisamplerate-capable stuff not giving a big shit about which
samplerate you choose to employ?
f.) Something else that I perhaps missed here?
:D
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77851 is a reply to message #77838] |
Thu, 04 January 2007 03:47 |
Jesse Skeens
Messages: 53
Registered: November 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I do think the limiters (and quite possible more to do with
>>Optimaster) have affected the test. The RMS level in the
>>SCOPE version was as I said about 1-1.5db higher. We all know
>>louder sounds better generally with this sort of thing.
>
>Louder doesn't sound wider & clearer, plus what if I had
>reduced power on the Pulsar mix so that the RMS levels were
>identical, then I would've been accused of manipulating THAT
>in some unfair manner... you know, I didn't realize there was
>going to be a fucking test or else I would've maybe studied
>more back in grade school.
>
>You need to do three things:
>
>1.) Go read my reply to your post on the Pulsar forum - if
>you're going to use my name in public & state that I said
>something, you'd better be fucking clear about what it is that I
>stated, and not leave out information or infer something as you
>did therein.
>
>2.) Do your own comparison & arrive at your own conclusion -
>I'm sure you're the OOOONLY one who can do this "fairly"
>and "without a difference" between the two.
>
>3.) Send me a check if I am to give you any more teutelage, or
>if you want any more of your questions answered... my open rate
>is $100 an hour.
>
>As I've said, I don't have a dog in this race, and I'm
>not "Pimpin' for Pulsar", so WHY WOULD I SKEW THE TESTS????
Neil,
I never said you were trying to skew the tests one way or another. And yes
I could havce explained your use of limiters more on the PlanetZ forum.
My point of writing that was that it wasn't a straight up comparison regardless
of how lightly they were being used. And I really suspect Optimaster has
something to do with this. But of course I could be wrong.
You seem to be taking these comments quite personally, its just a summing
test man. If you're not inclined to take them into consideration fine, I
understand but why all the hostility?
Jesse
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77867 is a reply to message #77839] |
Thu, 04 January 2007 09:03 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sort of none of the above. First, you are NOT working in a vanilla environment.
Of the main sample rates 44.1/48/88.2/96 88.2 is BY FAR the least common,
so I'm not all that surprised that of the four it caused the most problems.
In the end it was possible to make it work, and yes the CW folks should have
an internal database of previous trouble tickets that they could search to
give you a fix. However, when you were not happy you sent the card back and
gave you your money back. No blood, no foul. So I'd say their performance
was B-/C+, I've had much, much worse from pro audio companies. Like one who
tombstoned their gear, screwed their users, and left me with a near worthless
DSP system named after a famous city in Europe.
But the real problem I had was the 'Why doesn't this just fucking work' thing.
Like it or not, doing things like DSP summing for high track count audio
projects at 88.2 means you're an early adopter. Early adopters get their
noses bloodied, it's part of the deal, you get cooler toys with better performance
than the rest of the world but you get to find some answers for other people.
I've been doing that in the audio world for 10+ years now, posting on forums
and mailing lists with what I've learned, and by now I've had my nose bloodied
so many times I've quit expecting anything else. When I posted a few suggestions
and encouragement to you I got a screed about how it all should 'just fucking
work.' Which was actually a useful, watershed moment for me, because I realized
that there's no real reason I should fucking help fucking anyone anymore.
10 years seems like a very reasonable contribution to the computer audio
community, I'm sure there are lots of people more capable than me these days
to do the job, and I work a demanding enough day job that I should really
concentrate whatever music time I have on my own music, not on fixing other
peoples' computer problems.
To me, someone completely self taught in digital everything, that has taken
time and effort and frustration and mistakes to get this knowledge, it's
like a novice guitarist buying a strat and complaining he doesn't sound like
Hendrix. 'I went to the store, and I bought a strat. It's a fucking '65 reissue,
and the guy in the store said it's exactly the same model Hendrix used, and
it doesn't fucking work. I don't sound anything more like Hendrix. So, do
I need to get a Marshall too or does this strat just suck?' Exaggeration,
yes, but at the core it's the same thing.
And I want to stress, I'm really not pissed off, it's nothing personal, and
it was a very useful thing to think about. I think it's time for me to pitch
in occasionally with silly jokes and advice about highly specific things
and leave the rest to other people, while concentrating my real effort on
things like the Catalyst web framework and my own music.
TC
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Neil,
>>
>>While I disagreed strongly with your initial reaction/attitude to Pulsar
>>stuff, I agree completely here. People, Neil is trying to give out useful
>>information for free. If you think the tests could be improved, feel free
>>to approve them. It's like free software projects where someone complains
>>that a certain feature is really crucial but missing. The maintainer responds,
>>'Patches always welcome.'
>
>Thanks Thad, I appreciate it (fucking ingrates!).
>
>What did you disagree strongly with me about?
>a.) That the Pulsar reps misrepresented their product, or just
>don't know it as well as they should?
>b.) That they will whine if you mention this to them?
>c.) That the platform doesn't sync to a not-so-uncommon
>samplerate & will temporarily render your system a little bit
>fucked-over if you try this.
>d.) That I think the Pulsar Plugins are very clean, but rather
>so-so & kinda "plain vanilla", for the most part?
>e.) That six SHARC chips render a remarkably low level of DSP
>power at samplerates over 48k, perhaps explaining their
>staunch defense on their forum of 44.1k as the samplerate to
>use, contrary to everyone else in the industry who makes
>multisamplerate-capable stuff not giving a big shit about which
>samplerate you choose to employ?
>f.) Something else that I perhaps missed here?
>
>:D
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77871 is a reply to message #77867] |
Thu, 04 January 2007 09:36 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> think it's time for me to pitch
in occasionally with silly jokes and advice about highly specific things<
hmmmm......OK..........I need a vacation anyway....
;o)
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:459d2539$1@linux...
>
> Sort of none of the above. First, you are NOT working in a vanilla
> environment.
> Of the main sample rates 44.1/48/88.2/96 88.2 is BY FAR the least common,
> so I'm not all that surprised that of the four it caused the most
> problems.
> In the end it was possible to make it work, and yes the CW folks should
> have
> an internal database of previous trouble tickets that they could search to
> give you a fix. However, when you were not happy you sent the card back
> and
> gave you your money back. No blood, no foul. So I'd say their performance
> was B-/C+, I've had much, much worse from pro audio companies. Like one
> who
> tombstoned their gear, screwed their users, and left me with a near
> worthless
> DSP system named after a famous city in Europe.
>
> But the real problem I had was the 'Why doesn't this just fucking work'
> thing.
> Like it or not, doing things like DSP summing for high track count audio
> projects at 88.2 means you're an early adopter. Early adopters get their
> noses bloodied, it's part of the deal, you get cooler toys with better
> performance
> than the rest of the world but you get to find some answers for other
> people.
> I've been doing that in the audio world for 10+ years now, posting on
> forums
> and mailing lists with what I've learned, and by now I've had my nose
> bloodied
> so many times I've quit expecting anything else. When I posted a few
> suggestions
> and encouragement to you I got a screed about how it all should 'just
> fucking
> work.' Which was actually a useful, watershed moment for me, because I
> realized
> that there's no real reason I should fucking help fucking anyone anymore.
> 10 years seems like a very reasonable contribution to the computer audio
> community, I'm sure there are lots of people more capable than me these
> days
> to do the job, and I work a demanding enough day job that I should really
> concentrate whatever music time I have on my own music, not on fixing
> other
> peoples' computer problems.
>
> To me, someone completely self taught in digital everything, that has
> taken
> time and effort and frustration and mistakes to get this knowledge, it's
> like a novice guitarist buying a strat and complaining he doesn't sound
> like
> Hendrix. 'I went to the store, and I bought a strat. It's a fucking '65
> reissue,
> and the guy in the store said it's exactly the same model Hendrix used,
> and
> it doesn't fucking work. I don't sound anything more like Hendrix. So, do
> I need to get a Marshall too or does this strat just suck?' Exaggeration,
> yes, but at the core it's the same thing.
>
> And I want to stress, I'm really not pissed off, it's nothing personal,
> and
> it was a very useful thing to think about. I think it's time for me to
> pitch
> in occasionally with silly jokes and advice about highly specific things
> and leave the rest to other people, while concentrating my real effort on
> things like the Catalyst web framework and my own music.
>
> TC
>
> "Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Neil,
>>>
>>>While I disagreed strongly with your initial reaction/attitude to Pulsar
>>>stuff, I agree completely here. People, Neil is trying to give out useful
>>>information for free. If you think the tests could be improved, feel free
>>>to approve them. It's like free software projects where someone complains
>>>that a certain feature is really crucial but missing. The maintainer
>>>responds,
>>>'Patches always welcome.'
>>
>>Thanks Thad, I appreciate it (fucking ingrates!).
>>
>>What did you disagree strongly with me about?
>>a.) That the Pulsar reps misrepresented their product, or just
>>don't know it as well as they should?
>>b.) That they will whine if you mention this to them?
>>c.) That the platform doesn't sync to a not-so-uncommon
>>samplerate & will temporarily render your system a little bit
>>fucked-over if you try this.
>>d.) That I think the Pulsar Plugins are very clean, but rather
>>so-so & kinda "plain vanilla", for the most part?
>>e.) That six SHARC chips render a remarkably low level of DSP
>>power at samplerates over 48k, perhaps explaining their
>>staunch defense on their forum of 44.1k as the samplerate to
>>use, contrary to everyone else in the industry who makes
>>multisamplerate-capable stuff not giving a big shit about which
>>samplerate you choose to employ?
>>f.) Something else that I perhaps missed here?
>>
>>:D
>>
>>Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Scope summing examples posted? [message #77893 is a reply to message #77867] |
Thu, 04 January 2007 15:40 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Sort of none of the above. First, you are NOT working in a vanilla environment.
>Of the main sample rates 44.1/48/88.2/96 88.2 is BY FAR the least common,
>so I'm not all that surprised that of the four it caused the most problems.
>In the end it was possible to make it work, and yes the CW folks should
have
>an internal database of previous trouble tickets that they could search
to
>give you a fix. However, when you were not happy you sent the card back
and
>gave you your money back. No blood, no foul.
But WHINING about giving me a refund is a no-no, especially when
they misrepresented what the product was capable of doing... in
that case there should've been no whining, it should've been
more like: "You know what, Neil, I fucked up, let me offer to
cover the shipping for you to send it back, as well".
>But the real problem I had was the 'Why doesn't this just fucking work'
thing.
Only because I WAS TOLD it would 'fucking work' - I have no
problem if I elect to take my chances & embark on attempting to
make a DAW work underwater or teach a midget to play goalie for
the Maple Leafs or some other kind of unnatural act. I'm not
naive, but I do tend to trust people who are representing a
product when they say will do a certain thing. I guess I figure
that they should know all about the product they're selling...
in most industries if you don't, yer fuckt. I guess if we as
pro audio consumers continue to accept mediocre salespeople who
don't know their product and I'm the only one that bitches about
it, then I guess we all get what we deserve - an ongoing churn
of people who are less than knowledgeable than they should be -
or flat out & out misrepresent stuff without penalty.
>it's
>like a novice guitarist buying a strat and complaining he doesn't sound
like
>Hendrix. 'I went to the store, and I bought a strat. It's a fucking '65
reissue,
>and the guy in the store said it's exactly the same model Hendrix used,
and
>it doesn't fucking work. I don't sound anything more like Hendrix. So, do
>I need to get a Marshall too or does this strat just suck?' Exaggeration,
>yes, but at the core it's the same thing.
Not a good analogy to my situation, because in your example
the dialogue between the purchaser & the sales clerk at the
store did not go something like:
PURCH: "Will this Strat make me sound just like Jimi Hendrix,
and if so, do I need anything else like a Marshall, for example,
in order to accomplish this?"
tell the purchaser: "this
CLERK: "Yes, it will, in fact, make you sound just like Hendrix,
and no you don't need a Marshall, or for that matter, an amp of
any kind, nor anything else from my store in order for you to do
so."
Neil
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 11 02:58:40 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01589 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
