Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-REALITY CHECK
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-REALITY CHECK [message #66703] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 12:18  |
Music Lab Sweden
Messages: 12
Registered: January 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi All,
I am a former Paris user who still use Paris now and then, especially when
I remix old songs recorded in Paris. I gave up in favour of Soundscape which
I truly love.
Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and itīs sound but
when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire. It
nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT, Soundscape,
Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
I have a fairly large Paris setup and as much magic as it has it is quite
unreliable compared to the other systems.
For example: Paris can sometimes (randomly) add strange DC offset to the
files. It can depending on heat cause clicks. Aux leakage. Just to mention
a few anomalies. IOW to me it simply isnīt crystal clear and accurate. Also,
what is by some percieved as warmth, sounds to me like a bit clouded midrange.
I have recorded a fair amout of classical choirs in both Paris, Soundscape
and Nuendo. In this genre there is simply no competition at all. My Soundscape
converters (Apogee) simply kills Paris in clarity and detail. OTOH with pop/rock,
especially acoustic pop/rock (live drums), Paris can sound a bit more exciting
than the others.
Last but not least, sound aside Paris is a dinosaur. The routing options
leave A LOT to desire. The I/O flexibility is back to the stone age compared
to newer systems. The non-sample accurate editing is a PITA. Lack of professional
I/O options. Very rudimentary handling of native plugins, especially in stereo.
No bussing possibilites. No VST/DX on master bus. No delay compensation.
etc. ect...
IMHO most people who are sticking to Paris are doing it for financial reasons.
Given the very low price the SH systems are going for, the price vs. sound
preformance ratio is amazing, compared to other DSP-based system. In a true
professional enviroment with clients hanging over your shoulder, the compromises
are just to big, all IMO of course.
Just my 2 cents.
Babu
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66714 is a reply to message #66712] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 17:24  |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey DC - have you qualified what you didn't like, or didn't work with Nuendo
for classical? I'm curious from a technical perspective, regardless of
preferences, and not to spark further debate over which is "best". I have
found noticeable differences in how Samplitude handles gain vs. Nuendo,
although at unity gain, they sum identically. Thanks!
Regards,
Dedric
On 4/14/06 5:48 PM, in article 444034e7$1@linux, "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com>
wrote:
>
> "Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>
>
>> Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and itÂīs sound but
>> when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
> It
>> nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
>> Soundscape,
>> Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>
>
> Then you don't know how to use Paris, and I have the tracks to prove it.
>
> Samplitude is competitive with Paris on orchestras, Nuendo is not.
>
>
> DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66718 is a reply to message #66714] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 17:47 |
dc[4]
Messages: 62
Registered: September 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Best" is unknowable unless someone recorded the same orchestra
with the same mics, pres, and convertors at the same performance.
What I know is that I have mastered and recorded over 200 classical
CD's and Paris sounds even better than Sonic, which I can nearly use
blindfolded. This with the exact same material from the same source
DAT tape. Both examples were flown in, in real-time from a Sony
2800 DAT player, one into Sonic one into Paris. Paris sounded
better.
No, you can't record classical with Paris on-site using the onboard
convertors and expect perfect results, but what you can do is record
to any of the good portable media we have today, bring the material
back and fly it in on sp/dif, then post and master using the source
deck as clock. Do not push the levels like in pop music, and if you
have a good ear for EQ you can get results that are spectacular.
Greatness in classical is not measured by summing tests or
checksums, but by the conductor. (One of my conductors heard a
change in mic cables without my prompting) It's VERY hard to
capture an orchestra with 2 mics live to 2 track. If you know how
to do it though, the results are nearly perfect. Be aware, only
one "recording engineer" in 50 or so can hear as well as a great
conductor, so a lot of guys make fools of themselves trying to BS
the client. When it is wrong, they hear it in 3 seconds, and no
amount of techno-gibberish will save you, and when it is gloriously
right, you have a friend for life.
As for Nuendo, my experience is limited to demos and trade shows
where it sounded so bad I walked away on more than 5 different
occasions. And yes you can hear at trade shows. Funny how Sonic,
Paris, and Sequoia all sounded great at trade shows.
My classical colleagues have pretty much returned the same
verdict. I don't know anyone who seriously uses Nuendo. A lot
of people are using PT's now, but many are using Sequoia, and I am
headed that way in the next few years.
Great sound on orchestras is easy in Paris, you just have to know
how to use it. I also did a live project recently where I dragged out
the Paris rig and recorded live to 24-track and it sounds fabulous.
I did the drums with 4 mics, one on the snare, one in the kick, and
stereo overheads. So far, I am mixing it clean, and it sounds just
sweet and pristine. No fake "warmth" no analog fuzziness, no
middines, just great sound. I'll send you one when we are done if
you like.
DC
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Hey DC - have you qualified what you didn't like, or didn't work with Nuendo
>for classical? I'm curious from a technical perspective, regardless of
>preferences, and not to spark further debate over which is "best". I have
>found noticeable differences in how Samplitude handles gain vs. Nuendo,
>although at unity gain, they sum identically. Thanks!
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 4/14/06 5:48 PM, in article 444034e7$1@linux, "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> "Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and itīs sound
but
>>> when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
>> It
>>> nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
>>> Soundscape,
>>> Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>>
>>
>> Then you don't know how to use Paris, and I have the tracks to prove it.
>>
>> Samplitude is competitive with Paris on orchestras, Nuendo is not.
>>
>>
>> DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66727 is a reply to message #66718] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 20:34 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey DC - I agree - "best" is an unknown that is 90% subjective and 10%
objective, unless side by side comparison is made with completely identical
conditions, which is often quite difficult, if not impossible. Lynn Fuston
is one of the few to attempt that with DAWs on a large scale. You might be
surprised at how many unity gain mixes I found to cancel completely (all
24-bits). Samplitude, Nuendo, and PTHD I believe (Paris didn't cancel with
anything that I recall).
I can easily see Sequoia being a popular choice for classical with it's
superb editing capabilities - that's also apparent from their testimonials
list. I may head that way for some of the more advanced editing and mixing
capabilities at some point, though Nuendo is so far superior for music
production/scoring.
From what I've heard even on the Nuendo forum, the show demos seem to be
plagued with badness. The demos that come with Nuendo don't come close to
doing it justice, other than demonstrating such things as Play Order tracks
and looping, but certainly not sound quality or quality production (some
were embarrassing). One Nuendo forum member recently used a 2.2 demo for
some testing. When pulling out the files individually as I was running some
performance comparisons on my own, one track had pops and clicks throughout
- in the track, not my system - due to rendering problems with the creator's
sound card no doubt. Now, to use that as a demo, and even a test case for
performance and listening for pops and clicks? Pretty short sighted, but
certainly worse that Steinberg would send it out as a demo. Then again,
many product demos are obviously thrown together with little more intent
than to show a few features.
I wouldn't judge Nuendo or any product's sound quality on a noisy tradeshow
floor. Nuendo can deliver just as easily as any other DAW from my
experience - it's all in how you use it, as with any other. At the same
time I have no interest in convincing you otherwise on your opinion of it
because it really doesnÂđt matter to either one of us - you have what works
great for you so anything else is a waste of your money and time, imho. No
one really cares if Nuendo, Paris or PTHD recorded Mozart's Requiem - just
that it sounds superb. For me, it's just about what does the job I need,
and making sure that doesn't include an unsatisfactory compromise.
Sure, I would be very interested to hear the live project.
Regards,
Dedric
On 4/14/06 6:47 PM, in article 444042a6$1@linux, "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com>
wrote:
>
> "Best" is unknowable unless someone recorded the same orchestra
> with the same mics, pres, and convertors at the same performance.
>
> What I know is that I have mastered and recorded over 200 classical
> CD's and Paris sounds even better than Sonic, which I can nearly use
> blindfolded. This with the exact same material from the same source
> DAT tape. Both examples were flown in, in real-time from a Sony
> 2800 DAT player, one into Sonic one into Paris. Paris sounded
> better.
>
> No, you can't record classical with Paris on-site using the onboard
> convertors and expect perfect results, but what you can do is record
> to any of the good portable media we have today, bring the material
> back and fly it in on sp/dif, then post and master using the source
> deck as clock. Do not push the levels like in pop music, and if you
> have a good ear for EQ you can get results that are spectacular.
>
> Greatness in classical is not measured by summing tests or
> checksums, but by the conductor. (One of my conductors heard a
> change in mic cables without my prompting) It's VERY hard to
> capture an orchestra with 2 mics live to 2 track. If you know how
> to do it though, the results are nearly perfect. Be aware, only
> one "recording engineer" in 50 or so can hear as well as a great
> conductor, so a lot of guys make fools of themselves trying to BS
> the client. When it is wrong, they hear it in 3 seconds, and no
> amount of techno-gibberish will save you, and when it is gloriously
> right, you have a friend for life.
>
> As for Nuendo, my experience is limited to demos and trade shows
> where it sounded so bad I walked away on more than 5 different
> occasions. And yes you can hear at trade shows. Funny how Sonic,
> Paris, and Sequoia all sounded great at trade shows.
> My classical colleagues have pretty much returned the same
> verdict. I don't know anyone who seriously uses Nuendo. A lot
> of people are using PT's now, but many are using Sequoia, and I am
> headed that way in the next few years.
>
> Great sound on orchestras is easy in Paris, you just have to know
> how to use it. I also did a live project recently where I dragged out
> the Paris rig and recorded live to 24-track and it sounds fabulous.
> I did the drums with 4 mics, one on the snare, one in the kick, and
> stereo overheads. So far, I am mixing it clean, and it sounds just
> sweet and pristine. No fake "warmth" no analog fuzziness, no
> middines, just great sound. I'll send you one when we are done if
> you like.
>
> DC
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> Hey DC - have you qualified what you didn't like, or didn't work with Nuendo
>> for classical? I'm curious from a technical perspective, regardless of
>> preferences, and not to spark further debate over which is "best". I have
>> found noticeable differences in how Samplitude handles gain vs. Nuendo,
>> although at unity gain, they sum identically. Thanks!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 4/14/06 5:48 PM, in article 444034e7$1@linux, "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and itÂīs sound
> but
>>>> when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
>>> It
>>>> nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
>>>> Soundscape,
>>>> Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you don't know how to use Paris, and I have the tracks to prove it.
>>>
>>> Samplitude is competitive with Paris on orchestras, Nuendo is not.
>>>
>>>
>>> DC
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66728 is a reply to message #66727] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 20:58 |
dc[4]
Messages: 62
Registered: September 2005
|
Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Lynn Fuston
>is one of the few to attempt that with DAWs on a large scale. You might
be
>surprised at how many unity gain mixes I found to cancel completely (all
>24-bits). Samplitude, Nuendo, and PTHD I believe (Paris didn't cancel with
>anything that I recall).
Funny how those tests don't settle the issue. You can sum to
zero, yet you write a CD and the sound changes. Why? No one
knows. I mean no one. Not Lynn, Not Mel Lambert, not Bruce
Jackson, not SSC, not no one. SSC actually gave me grief for talking
about CD-R media then turned around and said not to write CD's
over 4X. Ummm bit is bits right? BS. My Yamaha CD writer
has a function called Advanced Audio Master Quality Recording.
It lengthens the burns a bit and tests your media to get the laser
levels just right. (It also reduces your max CD time to 68 minutes)
And it sounds better. Noticeably. How would you measure it?
Well I'm sure it has to do with the playback error correction, but
we can't test it yet.
We can hear better than we can measure. As a matter of fact it is
the acute hearing of real audio engineers and conductors that spurs
the techies on to ever-more sophisticated tests. And all of us have
heard really technical people do totally crap audio work. I have
personally seen genius acousticians design total POS sound
systems using every prediction and mapping tool and app in the
world. As retarded as it is to insist that we can hear something
that we can't hear when in a double-blind test, it is even more
retarded to insist that something is not there because some test
didn't show it. Sooner or later a test finds the anomaly and all
the techies stop smirking and go back to playing with hard drives
and the the audio engineers get some work done.
>From what I've heard even on the Nuendo forum, the show demos seem to be
>plagued with badness.
That's because the company is run by idiots. Ever try calling them?
And what kind of a loser outfit allows their AES and NAMM show
demos to sound like crap? Even Sonic Solutions had the good
sense to steal one of SSC's Paris demos to use in their booth.
(true story! they got caught btw, and got reamed out by a longhair
motorcycle crazy we know of...)
Listen, I believe you when you say it is better than the demos and I
am glad to hear it, but there will be no Nuendo here as long as the
company has their heads you know where. It ain't HARD to put out
good demos.
>I wouldn't judge Nuendo or any product's sound quality on a noisy tradeshow
>floor.
I'm going to disagree completely with you here. You can't get the
nuances, but if something is rocking-good you will hear it, and if
it is crap you will hear that too. Nuendo has driven me out of the
booth every time.
>Nuendo can deliver just as easily as any other DAW from my
>experience - it's all in how you use it, as with any other. At the same
>time I have no interest in convincing you otherwise on your opinion of it
>because it really doesnđt matter to either one of us
Actually I believe you. I just would never use the product and do
not believe it can beat a seasoned Paris jockey on the same
orchestra. Let's do it ourselves sometime and see if we can settle
it. You are not near SoCal are you?
>Sure, I would be very interested to hear the live project.
It should be out in a month or so.
best,
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66738 is a reply to message #66731] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 23:36 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quantization and math errors in the playback engine, for one. A to D
convertors is another.. I'm sure that there is more but those are the basics
that come to mind immediately for me. Plus, I think there is definitely
something to the *can't measure why they sound different, but do* theory.
AA
"Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote in message news:44407d5f$1@linux...
>
> "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote:
>>
>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Lynn Fuston
>>>is one of the few to attempt that with DAWs on a large scale. You might
>>be
>>>surprised at how many unity gain mixes I found to cancel completely (all
>>>24-bits). Samplitude, Nuendo, and PTHD I believe (Paris didn't cancel
> with
>>>anything that I recall).
>>
>>Funny how those tests don't settle the issue. You can sum to
>>zero, yet you write a CD and the sound changes. Why? No one
>>knows. I mean no one. Not Lynn, Not Mel Lambert, not Bruce
>>Jackson, not SSC, not no one. SSC actually gave me grief for talking
>>about CD-R media then turned around and said not to write CD's
>>over 4X. Ummm bit is bits right? BS. My Yamaha CD writer
>>has a function called Advanced Audio Master Quality Recording.
>>It lengthens the burns a bit and tests your media to get the laser
>>levels just right. (It also reduces your max CD time to 68 minutes)
>>And it sounds better. Noticeably. How would you measure it?
>>Well I'm sure it has to do with the playback error correction, but
>>we can't test it yet.
>>
>>We can hear better than we can measure. As a matter of fact it i
>
> But we can measure bits in digital audio just fine? I mean whats the
> mystery.
> If all the sound is made up of its bit values and we should two files to
> have the same values what possibly could make them sound different?
> There's
> no other hidden value to account for that. We know this becuase we
> designed
> the systems that record and playback the sound based on a fairly simple
> scheme.
> Record audio as numbers and play those numbers back. IF the numbers match
> then what could possibly make them not the same?
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66740 is a reply to message #66728] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 23:39 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 4/14/06 9:58 PM, in article 44406f63$1@linux, "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com>
wrote:
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>
>> Lynn Fuston
>> is one of the few to attempt that with DAWs on a large scale. You might
> be
>> surprised at how many unity gain mixes I found to cancel completely (all
>> 24-bits). Samplitude, Nuendo, and PTHD I believe (Paris didn't cancel with
>> anything that I recall).
>
> Funny how those tests don't settle the issue. You can sum to
> zero, yet you write a CD and the sound changes. Why? No one
> knows. I mean no one. Not Lynn, Not Mel Lambert, not Bruce
> Jackson, not SSC, not no one. SSC actually gave me grief for talking
> about CD-R media then turned around and said not to write CD's
> over 4X. Ummm bit is bits right? BS. My Yamaha CD writer
> has a function called Advanced Audio Master Quality Recording.
> It lengthens the burns a bit and tests your media to get the laser
> levels just right. (It also reduces your max CD time to 68 minutes)
> And it sounds better. Noticeably. How would you measure it?
> Well I'm sure it has to do with the playback error correction, but
> we can't test it yet.
>
Obviously either Yamaha figured some part of it out or Advanced Audio Master
Quality is euphemism for "sucker". ;-) You know I'm just making light of a
debate that has been raging for as long as 1's and 0's have been around, not
discounting what you are saying about the audible differences you hear.
Developers donÂđt just guess at techniques to improve quality. There is a
science and technical reasoning behind it (usually, unless marketing holds
all the marbles) - but that's why they do what they do, and I don't. I used
to, but it drove me batty (hardware/software dev - too tedious for me).
If there is a way to generate a result, there is a way to test it, because
that's the way someone found it to begin with - testing, trying and
guessing. The fact is, a 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0, but the problem comes in
how strings of them are interpreted into sound waves, and all the variables
in between, and so the likelihood of simplified testing at the user level
flies out the window.
> We can hear better than we can measure. As a matter of fact it is
> the acute hearing of real audio engineers and conductors that spurs
> the techies on to ever-more sophisticated tests. And all of us have
> heard really technical people do totally crap audio work. I have
> personally seen genius acousticians design total POS sound
> systems using every prediction and mapping tool and app in the
> world. As retarded as it is to insist that we can hear something
> that we can't hear when in a double-blind test, it is even more
> retarded to insist that something is not there because some test
> didn't show it.
And also it is often the expectation of the test that leads us to results
that aren't there. The brain is a tricky interpreter, and that is why I
there there is usually a way to ferret out the anomaly and give
repeatability and solidity to what we perceive, or don't perceive.
> Sooner or later a test finds the anomaly and all
> the techies stop smirking and go back to playing with hard drives
> and the the audio engineers get some work done.
>
:-))
>
> Listen, I believe you when you say it is better than the demos and I
> am glad to hear it, but there will be no Nuendo here as long as the
> company has their heads you know where. It ain't HARD to put out
> good demos.
>
You aren't the first to express displeasure with Steinberg, and I completely
agree about demos - I could have given them a demo that killed anything I've
heard them put out, as could a million other people, but maybe demo makers
just don't get paid enough to do it right. I have clients with the same
mentality - put all your eggs in one basket that might look good on paper
and leave nothing left to hatch and grow the chickens with.
Some companies seem to take a developers' mindset to marketing ("It's great
code, surely everyone can see that!"...well, no, not without Code Warrior
and a CS degree...). I can think of another well known to this group that
did the same.
>
>
>> I wouldn't judge Nuendo or any product's sound quality on a noisy tradeshow
>> floor.
>
> I'm going to disagree completely with you here. You can't get the
> nuances, but if something is rocking-good you will hear it, and if
> it is crap you will hear that too. Nuendo has driven me out of the
> booth every time.
>
Actually I was referring to the subtleties of summing and audio quality,
which I assumed you were referring to when saying Nuendo couldn't cut it for
recording classical. I presumed you had put them side by side and found one
to be missing X where the other was wider at Z. To detect that level of
detail obviously requires a quiet studio environment. Now, whether the
material rocks or sucks is another matter entirely, and no doubt should be
the first consideration for booth reps.
>
>> Nuendo can deliver just as easily as any other DAW from my
>> experience - it's all in how you use it, as with any other. At the same
>> time I have no interest in convincing you otherwise on your opinion of it
>> because it really doesnÂđt matter to either one of us
>
>
> Actually I believe you. I just would never use the product and do
> not believe it can beat a seasoned Paris jockey on the same
> orchestra. Let's do it ourselves sometime and see if we can settle
> it. You are not near SoCal are you?
Colorado, so I'm on the same side of the Mississippi. A bit of a hike, but
maybe sometime we can put these tools to a test for a musical purpose beyond
just comparing bits and bytes.
>
>
>> Sure, I would be very interested to hear the live project.
>
> It should be out in a month or so.
>
> best,
>
> DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66746 is a reply to message #66712] |
Sat, 15 April 2006 00:03 |
Music Lab Sweden
Messages: 12
Registered: January 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Wow, this is a truly heated discussion. I sense it triggers all kinds of emotions.
Well, DC almighty. It seems like it is difficult to argue with you since
you have the best ears on the planet and that your opinion is some kind of
physical absolute. Itīs also fascinating that you seem to be the best Paris
operator which gives you the power to simply tell a fellow Paris user that
he doesnīt know how to use his rig, which he has been using probably longer
than yourself.
Please direct us to some tracks to prove your superiority as a Paris operator
and sound engineer. I need not to say that the comparisons should be on a
scientific level and not some bullshit "feeling" or "it sounded better yesterday
with Paris" comparison.
I guess you werenīt taught to be humble by your mother...
"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote:
>
>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and itīs sound but
>>when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
>It
>>nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT, Soundscape,
>>Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>
>
>Then you don't know how to use Paris, and I have the tracks to prove it.
>
>Samplitude is competitive with Paris on orchestras, Nuendo is not.
>
>
>DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66754 is a reply to message #66740] |
Sat, 15 April 2006 00:30 |
dc[4]
Messages: 62
Registered: September 2005
|
Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Developers donđt just guess at techniques to improve quality.
Absolutely, but it does not follow therefore that all of this is both
known and quantifiable. It's not. Look at the tremendous
variables in phase shift and group delay in various eq's, both
analog and digital! But wait, it's just 1 & 0's right?
>If there is a way to generate a result, there is a way to test it, because
>that's the way someone found it to begin with - testing, trying and
>guessing. The fact is, a 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0, but the problem comes
in
>how strings of them are interpreted into sound waves, and all the variables
>in between, and so the likelihood of simplified testing at the user level
>flies out the window.
Genius. Here's your degree. I wish I had said that.
So, why doesn't
anyone know why the sound changes when you write it to CD?
Of course, different D-A and all, but it is different even when you
pop the CD player into your D-A for your DAW!
There is more to be learned. period.
>And also it is often the expectation of the test that leads us to results
>that aren't there. The brain is a tricky interpreter, and that is why I
>there there is usually a way to ferret out the anomaly and give
>repeatability and solidity to what we perceive, or don't perceive.
Yep it is called double-blind testing and one pound of it is worth
a ton of circular reasoning about 1's and 0's.
>Actually I was referring to the subtleties of summing and audio quality,
>which I assumed you were referring to when saying Nuendo couldn't cut it
for
>recording classical. I presumed you had put them side by side and found
one
>to be missing X where the other was wider at Z. To detect that level of
>detail obviously requires a quiet studio environment. Now, whether the
>material rocks or sucks is another matter entirely, and no doubt should
be
>the first consideration for booth reps.
Well I've never gotten that far because the company is run by
people who are not interested in me as a client. I suspect that
explains why so few classical people use it, even if it is as good
as the others. I refuse to reject the evidence at hand that these
people do not care about audio quality and treat customers who
call them like dirt. Now, you call up Sequoia and spend 2 hours
sitting down with a product that sounds wonderful and works
great, and they give you their cellphone numbers, and it gets hard
to find the diamond in the mudpile over at Steinberg.
People who do classical are real serious about their work. Funky and
warm with a good groove means nothing. It is way
different from pop because you literally cannot overkill the sound
quality. Listen to the better Telarc or Dorian stuff. A good guy
can do better work with careful mic placement, a great convertor
and just the right EQ in post, all at 44.1, than a lesser guy can
do at 192, no matter the gear, yet so many people think you can
determine quality from specs and numbers... yikes!
>Colorado, so I'm on the same side of the Mississippi. A bit of a hike,
but
>maybe sometime we can put these tools to a test for a musical purpose beyond
>just comparing bits and bytes.
That would be fun. I want come through this summer and see
DJ as well.
take care
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66758 is a reply to message #66755] |
Sat, 15 April 2006 00:55 |
Music Lab Sweden
Messages: 12
Registered: January 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Who is trolling? My post is full of IMOīs and I never stated that my experiences
were non-disputable. It is YOU who put that angle to the discussion. Please
tell me, if you are such an experienced Paris user, how come you didnīt mention
any of the anomalies I mentioned. Miraculously you never encountered them???
Parisī all time biggest advocate, Brian T left the building in favour of
Nuendo, which you mention as inferior...
BTW. What I meant by scientific was simply a proper A-B comparison with all
other things being equal with perfect level matching in the same enviroment
with the same tracks.
There are more things to the sound than just playing back raw tracks. For
example, the possibility to properly route drums to a seperate bus and process
them affects sound. I know it can be done in Paris, but how long does it
take and how easy is it compared to other systems?
"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote:
>
>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>
>>Well, DC almighty. It seems like it is difficult to argue with you since
>>you have the best ears on the planet and that your opinion is some kind
>of
>>physical absolute.
>
>This is so silly and childish. I will not respond, thanks!
>
>>I need not to say that the comparisons should be on a
>>scientific level and not some bullshit "feeling" or "it sounded better
yesterday
>>with Paris" comparison.
>
>And there you have exposed yourself. Oh yeah. "science" as in
>your opinion? Yeah "science" like that which produced the music?
>
>Nah, it's art and if you can't hear the difference, then you are in the
>wrong business.
>
>
>>I guess you werenīt taught to be humble by your mother...
>
>Say, do they still let you have mothers over there?
>
>If you are so humble, try contributing something to this group
>besides trolling and baiting, ok Buhu??
>
>DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66760 is a reply to message #66746] |
Sat, 15 April 2006 02:18 |
wmarkwilson
Messages: 114
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Observation if I may; your words are a dead give away that the "heat" and
the "triggers" are yours bro.... you've been in the bathroom too long.
Regards,
W. Mark Wilson
"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote in message news:44409acb$1@linux...
>
> Wow, this is a truly heated discussion. I sense it triggers all kinds of
> emotions.
>
> Well, DC almighty. It seems like it is difficult to argue with you since
> you have the best ears on the planet and that your opinion is some kind of
> physical absolute. Itīs also fascinating that you seem to be the best
> Paris
> operator which gives you the power to simply tell a fellow Paris user that
> he doesnīt know how to use his rig, which he has been using probably
> longer
> than yourself.
>
> Please direct us to some tracks to prove your superiority as a Paris
> operator
> and sound engineer. I need not to say that the comparisons should be on a
> scientific level and not some bullshit "feeling" or "it sounded better
> yesterday
> with Paris" comparison.
>
> I guess you werenīt taught to be humble by your mother...
>
> "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and itīs sound but
>>>when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
>>It
>>>nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
>>>Soundscape,
>>>Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>>
>>
>>Then you don't know how to use Paris, and I have the tracks to prove it.
>>
>>Samplitude is competitive with Paris on orchestras, Nuendo is not.
>>
>>
>>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66767 is a reply to message #66760] |
Sat, 15 April 2006 03:42 |
Ed
Messages: 199
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well I disagree... Babu gave his opinion.. and I read it. Perhaps we agree
with him on some things... whatever, it didn't call for a reply saying "You
don't know how to use it... I can prove it" and turn around and run with
your fuckin tail up your ass.... PUSSY! DO NOT respond if you you can't
back it... I am Paris owner for many years... but Paris, especially 3.0 has
so many flaws... it pathetic... Accept the truth... EMU trashed it, ID
pretty much trashed it too... It is a DEAD daw... but I am going to use it
as long as it works for me and until I can afford to acquire something
better.
I use to come on this newsgroup and we kept out the blabber bullshit I see
all over this place. We use to talk strictly Paris and recording and
components and products.. now all I read about is a person personal crap
that is unwanted by most... as I did before, I'll prolly quit coming here
again.. too much bullshit. adios...
"W. Mark Wilson" <wmarkwilson@integrity.com> wrote in message
news:4440b9ba@linux...
> Observation if I may; your words are a dead give away that the "heat" and
> the "triggers" are yours bro.... you've been in the bathroom too long.
>
> Regards,
> W. Mark Wilson
>
> "Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote in message news:44409acb$1@linux...
> >
> > Wow, this is a truly heated discussion. I sense it triggers all kinds of
> > emotions.
> >
> > Well, DC almighty. It seems like it is difficult to argue with you since
> > you have the best ears on the planet and that your opinion is some kind
of
> > physical absolute. Itīs also fascinating that you seem to be the best
> > Paris
> > operator which gives you the power to simply tell a fellow Paris user
that
> > he doesnīt know how to use his rig, which he has been using probably
> > longer
> > than yourself.
> >
> > Please direct us to some tracks to prove your superiority as a Paris
> > operator
> > and sound engineer. I need not to say that the comparisons should be on
a
> > scientific level and not some bullshit "feeling" or "it sounded better
> > yesterday
> > with Paris" comparison.
> >
> > I guess you werenīt taught to be humble by your mother...
> >
> > "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and itīs sound
but
> >>>when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
> >>It
> >>>nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
> >>>Soundscape,
> >>>Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>Then you don't know how to use Paris, and I have the tracks to prove it.
> >>
> >>Samplitude is competitive with Paris on orchestras, Nuendo is not.
> >>
> >>
> >>DC
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66768 is a reply to message #66767] |
Sat, 15 April 2006 04:38 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Ed
Don't sweat it...it's been pretty cordial around here lately...you just
picked a bad time to check the NG out again
Stick around, there's been some pretty informative cross platform, digital
interface and work around discussions going on lately...oh and a few more
people bailing on Paris but that's to be expected.
Don
"Ed" <askme@email.com> wrote in message news:4440cd0d@linux...
> Well I disagree... Babu gave his opinion.. and I read it. Perhaps we
> agree
> with him on some things... whatever, it didn't call for a reply saying
> "You
> don't know how to use it... I can prove it" and turn around and run with
> your fuckin tail up your ass.... PUSSY! DO NOT respond if you you can't
> back it... I am Paris owner for many years... but Paris, especially 3.0
> has
> so many flaws... it pathetic... Accept the truth... EMU trashed it, ID
> pretty much trashed it too... It is a DEAD daw... but I am going to use
> it
> as long as it works for me and until I can afford to acquire something
> better.
>
> I use to come on this newsgroup and we kept out the blabber bullshit I see
> all over this place. We use to talk strictly Paris and recording and
> components and products.. now all I read about is a person personal crap
> that is unwanted by most... as I did before, I'll prolly quit coming here
> again.. too much bullshit. adios...
>
> "W. Mark Wilson" <wmarkwilson@integrity.com> wrote in message
> news:4440b9ba@linux...
>> Observation if I may; your words are a dead give away that the "heat" and
>> the "triggers" are yours bro.... you've been in the bathroom too long.
>>
>> Regards,
>> W. Mark Wilson
>>
>> "Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote in message news:44409acb$1@linux...
>> >
>> > Wow, this is a truly heated discussion. I sense it triggers all kinds
>> > of
>> > emotions.
>> >
>> > Well, DC almighty. It seems like it is difficult to argue with you
>> > since
>> > you have the best ears on the planet and that your opinion is some kind
> of
>> > physical absolute. Itīs also fascinating that you seem to be the best
>> > Paris
>> > operator which gives you the power to simply tell a fellow Paris user
> that
>> > he doesnīt know how to use his rig, which he has been using probably
>> > longer
>> > than yourself.
>> >
>> > Please direct us to some tracks to prove your superiority as a Paris
>> > operator
>> > and sound engineer. I need not to say that the comparisons should be on
> a
>> > scientific level and not some bullshit "feeling" or "it sounded better
>> > yesterday
>> > with Paris" comparison.
>> >
>> > I guess you werenīt taught to be humble by your mother...
>> >
>> > "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and itīs sound
> but
>> >>>when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so
>> >>>desire.
>> >>It
>> >>>nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
>> >>>Soundscape,
>> >>>Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Then you don't know how to use Paris, and I have the tracks to prove
>> >>it.
>> >>
>> >>Samplitude is competitive with Paris on orchestras, Nuendo is not.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>DC
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66783 is a reply to message #66758] |
Sat, 15 April 2006 10:27 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>
>Who is trolling?
Oh, now you are all reasonable and "I was only doing this" and
blah blah...
You were trolling. Now you want to have a debate? Tell you what,
why don't you actually contribute to this group for a while?
Share your favorite mics and pres. How about some tricks getting
a great bass sound? What do you use for choirs?
Then I will be happy to share with you all the details. But when you
come one here with a "reality check" and then accuse ME of a
lack of humility, you are nothing but a troll.
>My post is full of IMOīs and I never stated that my experiences
>were non-disputable. It is YOU who put that angle to the discussion.
EVERYONES experiences are disputable.
>Parisī all time biggest advocate, Brian T left the building in favour of
>Nuendo, which you mention as inferior...
Brian doesn't do symphonic music, he does pop and works at
a modern church. I'll bet he still runs Paris at one place or another.
None of us cares who leaves and who stays. I have clients coming
here this morning who think Paris sounds fabulous. Now show me
where your opinion should count in the whole equation?
>BTW. What I meant by scientific was simply a proper A-B comparison with
all
>other things being equal with perfect level matching in the same enviroment
>with the same tracks.
Well, Paris killed Sonic Solutions in that very test, and NO ONE
claims that Nuendo sounds better than Sonic. My point was that
if you believe there is a lack of clarity and detail in Paris compared
to something else, than you are using it wrong. I stand by that point
and have done the work to prove it. Now, if you want to add
something to our little group instead of dumping on it, I will send
you a CD, all the way to Sweden, to let you hear some of it.
>There are more things to the sound than just playing back raw tracks. For
>example, the possibility to properly route drums to a seperate bus and process
>them affects sound. I know it can be done in Paris, but how long does it
>take and how easy is it compared to other systems?
Don't need this for what I do. Glad it works for you.
If you wish us to act collegial, then act like a colleague.
best,
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66853 is a reply to message #66848] |
Sat, 15 April 2006 20:24 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I was reviewing a mix the other day with RME's Digicheck bit analyzer and
found 3 twos, 4 fives and 1 eleven. I flipped them over and the mix sounded
a lot wider. Garage band....what are ya gonna do.
On 4/15/06 8:26 PM, in article 4441ae26@linux, "DJ"
<animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> I think it's just plain old magic.
>
> ;o)
>
> "DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote in message news:44419fa8$1@linux...
>>
>> "Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The complexity of code in a DAW has no bearing on the fact that an audio
>>> file is just 1's and 0's.
>>
>>
>> WHAT? it has every bearing on what is done to them, and that
>> changes dramatically according to that very-complex code.
>>
>>
>>> At the level that a DAW reads those values two
>>> files with the same set of values should read exactly the same by the
> DAW,
>>> theres no way for it to see a difference.
>>
>> That's assuming a lot.
>>
>>
>>> So I have to be either or? If you hear something different then your
> mind
>>> is probably fooling you.
>>
>> And there it is. As silly as some of the "golden ears" are, you guys
>> are much, much worse. You reason backwards from your
>> assumptions and convince yourself that something you hear is not
>> there. Then one day your assumptions are shown to be invalid.
>>
>>
>>> Theres many variables at play, you'd have to examime
>>> each case induvidually. It's hard to just sit here and making sweeping
>> statements
>>> without looking at the details.
>>
>> Thank you. And a decent percentage of people who hear things that
>> you cannot measure are what drives forward progress. Remember
>> the sound of the early Sony 1630/1640 decks? The techies all
>> said the same thing you are saying. It's fine, it's just 1' and 0's and
>> your mind is fooling you.
>>
>> BS
>>
>> best,
>>
>> DC
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66861 is a reply to message #66783] |
Sun, 16 April 2006 00:12 |
Music Lab Sweden
Messages: 12
Registered: January 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spamtheswedes.com> wrote:
>
>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>>
>>Who is trolling?
>
>Oh, now you are all reasonable and "I was only doing this" and
>blah blah...
>
>You were trolling. Now you want to have a debate? Tell you what,
>why don't you actually contribute to this group for a while?
>Share your favorite mics and pres. How about some tricks getting
>a great bass sound? What do you use for choirs?
I didnīt know there was a rule on this NG, against silent lurkers voicing
their opinion.
>
>Then I will be happy to share with you all the details. But when you
>come one here with a "reality check" and then accuse ME of a
>lack of humility, you are nothing but a troll.
You are saying that my opinions are not valid because I donīt post as often
as you do???
>
>>My post is full of IMOīs and I never stated that my experiences
>>were non-disputable. It is YOU who put that angle to the discussion.
>
>EVERYONES experiences are disputable.
Yeah, you really left a lot of room for that in the sentence below:
>"Then you don't know how to use Paris, and I have the tracks to >prove it."
>
>
>>Parisī all time biggest advocate, Brian T left the building in favour of
>>Nuendo, which you mention as inferior...
>
>
>Brian doesn't do symphonic music, he does pop and works at
>a modern church. I'll bet he still runs Paris at one place or another.
Huh, your bet? If you read my post you would see that I also record pop,
rock etc. and that I actually praised Paris in these applications.
>None of us cares who leaves and who stays. I have clients coming
>here this morning who think Paris sounds fabulous. Now show me
>where your opinion should count in the whole equation?
Thats why you were all over the poor guy, Dave who switched to PT and praised
his new system?
>
>
>>BTW. What I meant by scientific was simply a proper A-B comparison with
>all
>>other things being equal with perfect level matching in the same enviroment
>>with the same tracks.
>
>Well, Paris killed Sonic Solutions in that very test, and NO ONE
>claims that Nuendo sounds better than Sonic. My point was that
>if you believe there is a lack of clarity and detail in Paris compared
>to something else, than you are using it wrong. I stand by that point
>and have done the work to prove it. Now, if you want to add
>something to our little group instead of dumping on it, I will send
>you a CD, all the way to Sweden, to let you hear some of it.
>
I thought NGīs were places where one could freely chat with people sharing
same interest WITHOUT any obligations, provided that you donīt insult anyone.
>
>>There are more things to the sound than just playing back raw tracks. For
>>example, the possibility to properly route drums to a seperate bus and
process
>>them affects sound. I know it can be done in Paris, but how long does it
>>take and how easy is it compared to other systems?
>
>
>Don't need this for what I do. Glad it works for you.
>
>
>If you wish us to act collegial, then act like a colleague.
Us??? Are you now the voice of the whole NG? I didnīt hear anyone else complaining.
>
>best,
>
>DC
This will be my last post on this topic. Waste of time...
The sensmoral is that you are welcome to post as long as you donīt critisize
Paris!!!???
Regards
Babu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66902 is a reply to message #66890] |
Sun, 16 April 2006 11:45 |
Music Lab Sweden
Messages: 12
Registered: January 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote:
>
>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>
>>BTW. If you really are interested, I usually use one of the following setups
>>for recording choirs. All depending on time available for preparation etc.
>
>Of course I am interested.
>
>>Recording medium: SS32 with 896 I/O or RME Fireface800 and a laptop.
>>
>>MicPre: Millenia Media HV3
>
>I put one of the HV3's in for an orchestra with B&K 4003 mics. Nice
>mic pre indeed.
I love the pre. Itīs so transparent, but still not sterile. Itīs not a replacement
for API for pop/rock though. Lots of clean gain for quite passages. Wonderful
for strings, ac guitars as well.
>
>
>>Mics: Depending on size of choir; Either a pair of Sennheiser MKH40īs in
>>X-Y or a Royer SF12 ribbon.
>
>How is the Royer? Not too warm? I used spaced omni's most
>of the time and told the people who care about mono to pan
>one channel center and mute the other.
Spaced omnis should be the most accurate with less phase issues, but they
also require quite good acoustics from the room, donīt they? I would love
to have a pair of omnis as well.
The Royers are wonderful on certain material, but you need A LOT of clean
gain to record choirs. I usually put it on a very high boom quite near the
center of the choir. Itīs a bit more difficult to use it with wider spread
choirs. However, the uncolored mids and the incridibly smooth highs are very
hard to achieve with conventional condensers.
>
>
>>Back in the studio I usually edit the wavīs directly in Wavelab, but sometimes
>>do very slight limiting/compression with a Crane Song STC8.
>
>Wavelab is one thing I really wish we could get for macs.
>
>Sounds like a nice setup.
>
>best, DC
>
Itīs one of my main reasons for sticking with PC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Ear CHECK [message #66914 is a reply to message #66902] |
Sun, 16 April 2006 13:23 |
dc[4]
Messages: 62
Registered: September 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote:
>I love the pre. Itīs so transparent, but still not sterile. Itīs not a replacement
>for API for pop/rock though. Lots of clean gain for quite passages. Wonderful
>for strings, ac guitars as well.
Absolutely and great folks at the company with comprehensive
support.
I use a modded Jensen 990 Twin Servo that I just love. Detail to
die for and as smooth as can be. Another place I like clean pres
in pop is on drum overheads and pianos. I also have had great luck
when a singer has a big voice, with the 990 and a good condensor
mic. Otherwise, I like my Summit Tube mic pre for pop.
>Spaced omnis should be the most accurate with less phase issues, but they
>also require quite good acoustics from the room, donīt they?
Oh absolutely. Most of my work was done in nice concert halls so
the clarity off-axis was a big plus. It also allowed me to get really
close to the orchestra without getting too dry. Often I would be
right over the conductor's head about 18 feet up (5.5m) and I
always used the nosecones on the B&K's. I did a classical harp
disc in a cathedral with spaced omni's about 4 feet (1.2m) from
the strings. I took the harp's padded bag, and anything else I
could find and put them on the floor around the harp to cut down
on the reflection from the floor. I like the results.
You can compensate for omni's if you don't like the room
by getting close, but they don't work everywhere. This is why we
need so many mics! (this is what I tell my wife at least)
>I would love
>to have a pair of omnis as well.
Can't beat the Danes on this! (B&K) Not inexpensive of course and
do get the nosecones.
>The Royers are wonderful on certain material, but you need A LOT of clean
>gain to record choirs. I usually put it on a very high boom quite near the
>center of the choir. Itīs a bit more difficult to use it with wider spread
>choirs. However, the uncolored mids and the incridibly smooth highs are
very
>hard to achieve with conventional condensers.
I think choirs, recorded well, are just glorious. One of my favorite
discs is Lauridsen's Lux Aeterna by the Los Angeles Master Chorale.
The music is so radiant I would have recorded it for free. (shhhh
don't tell anyone...) The guys who did it are very good.
http://www.lamc.org/tickets/recordings.html
DC
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Dec 14 17:38:50 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01689 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
