|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:Need Help Installing DVD Recorder Drive [message #61464 is a reply to message #61448] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 02:33   |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>I commented on this elsewhere. I think this is a user friendliness test (for
a certain kind of user), not a sonics test. I think the DAW test was excellent
at testing what it was supposed to test, which was if digital summing busses
sound very different. It wasn't designed to test which was the most fun/eaiest
to use/most like a console/prettiest/best value/most expandable or anything
else. For what it did it was great, the other questions should be answered
with other, appropriate tests. In my never-at-all-humble opinion of course
;-)
TCB
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>That's the beauty of PARIS. It's like an analog console with plugins and
>editing. You can push it and pull it and twist it and mold it without worry.
>In the last year of working with DP I've learned just how cool PARIS really
>is. Red lights in DP mean ouch. Red lights in PARIS mean things are cookin'.
>
>Tony
>
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>news:43bc05f6@linux...
>> One thing that they didn't do on that DAW summing CD was to push the
>> respective systems. I think a lot more would have been revealed had this
>> been done and Brian could have used the various gain staging options
>> available in Paris.
>>
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:43bc03c4$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Agreed :)
>>> LaMont
>>>
>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >I wasn't thinking you were slamming SX or native stuff in general. In
>> fact,
>>> >in theory native mixes should sound better becuase of the necessary
>> latencies
>>> >in many hardware based computer systems. And I agree that different
>> sytstems
>>> >need to be worked differently to sound good--I think a lot of what makes
>>> >PARIS sound good is that it takes abuse artfully, maybe even
>> aesthetically.
>>> >But I was shocked at how little difference there was on that DAW CD.
>>> >
>>> >TCB
>>> >
>>> >"La" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>Good Post Thad..
>>> >>
>>> >>My point was not to slam SX/Nuendo,but to say that:
>>> >>
>>> >>-Pro Toools Sounds good if not great.
>>> >>-(To Me) I have to work harder to get good mixes out of SX/Nuendo.
The
>>> >mixes
>>> >>end up sound ing great, but the work involved is not as easy(To me)
get
>>> >maximum
>>> >>results.
>>> >>Take care
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I did the DAW summing CD thingy from what's his name in Nashville
and
>>> could
>>> >>>find basically zero difference in anything. Maybe I'm deaf, but if
you
>>> >were
>>> >>>to double blind me I don't think I could pick out individual mixes
>> consistently.
>>> >>>Since that was (if I recall) a 24 track mix that was big and loud
and
>>> R&B/rock/gospel
>>> >>>I would think that would argue against this idea. However, it's a
>> little
>>> >>>like the audiophile world sometimes where when the tests seem to
>> disprove
>>> >>>personal experience the test is faulted instead of the experience.
>> That's
>>> >>>fine, ears are very fine instruments and some are just better than
>> others.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>That said, I now work a good bit of my time in the finance world where
>>> >fortunes
>>> >>>are made and lost according to the certitude of people in their
>> experiences
>>> >>>or mathmatical models. Over time this has lead me to believe more
in
>> emperical
>>> >>>results than my experience. So if I do my own blind tests with the
>> Nashville
>>> >>>CD and can't generate statistically significant data that DAWs sound
>> different
>>> >>>then *I* will believe they sound the same. This could mean a flawed
>> test
>>> >>>or flawed ears but that's my belief until someone can present me with
>>> more
>>> >>>convincing data.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>But hey, that's just me. I've also done mixes of 30+ tracks in SX
and
>>> think
>>> >>>they sound quite nice.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>TCB
>>> >>>
>>> >>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Hey guys,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>I know that this is an old thread, but I have to disagree with
>> assessments
>>> >>>>on Pro Tools sound quality.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>First, I mix with Pro Tools HD at our Church's studio for major
>> release
>>> >>>Gospel
>>> >>>>Cds. Pro Tools HD sounds wonderful with low and high track counts
and
>>> >ITB
>>> >>>>(in the Box) or summed to the SSL,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>At my home studio, I have PT LE & Nuendo and while I love Nuendo's
>> elequent
>>> >>>>editing and nice soft sound, it's 32 bit floating mixer in a major
>> pain
>>> >>>in
>>> >>>>!@# to mix aggresive Rock, R &B, Hip hop with. Onthe other hand,
>> those
>>> >>>same
>>> >>>>mixes done in PT LE, have that sparkle and width. In Nuendo, after
30
>>> >tracks,
>>> >>>>things start's getting "smearded" and tracks levels tends to get
lost
>>> >or
>>> >>>>they don't sit right.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>However, in PT Le, (same songs, tracks are not smeared, levels stay
>> intacked,
>>> >>>>and the overall mix sounds very professional, just like mixes in
>> Paris..
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Some local Engineer friends in the area( Motown), have been in
>> discussions
>>> >>>>about the state of current DAWs and what's working and what's not.
>> Opinions
>>> >>>>varied,but the one constant opinion that was stated was how dificult
>>> it
>>> >>>was
>>> >>>>to mix in Cubase and Nuendo on mixes over 30 tracks. No matter wha
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
