Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

with industry Pro, Nick Batzdorf

Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff

nickbatzdorf
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by nickbatzdorf » Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:31 am

By the way, Pro Tools can still open interleaved files, but it de-interleaves them into two mono files so it can work with them.Note that stereo tracks in Pro Tools contain two mono tracks, in fact you can drag files from two mono tracks into a stereo track and vice versa.

matto
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:02 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by matto » Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:54 pm

Quote:Now I've heard many arguments that it should make no difference because the human ear can't hear sounds up near 40 kHz, but it DOES make an enormous difference in the overall sound of the recording.Well, I'd agree it makes A difference, but enormous...? Most people seem to agree that the difference between 16 and 24bit is a lot more noticeable, and even that could hardly be described as "enormous" under average listening conditions...Quote:In fact, I've mastered analog recordings using a top-of-the-line EQ, and I swear to God I can hear up to the highest frequency, 26 kHz. Maybe I'm part dog! You wouldn't have to be part dog, Ern . Cutting or boosting at a center frequency of 26k will have an effect to well below 20k unless the EQ is extremely narrow Q, which a mastering EQ wouldn't be.Quote:But pretty soon CDs will be history, and a higher resolution digital format will take its place. You'll have to buy your record collection all over again!I kinda doubt that's gonna happen anytime soon. The success of mp3's seems to prove that the general public isn't really interested in better fidelity. I can't see how the record companies could successfully launch a new format whose only benefit is better sound. Perhaps if there was multimedia content added...but generally, people seem to be happy enough with the CD's audio quality.Which brings me to the CD vs Vinyl debate. The way I see it, the reason most people think CDs sound better than Vinyl is that 95% of the time they do... Your AVERAGE record is going to suffer from serious surface noise, maybe have a few scratches, and a dynamic range far insufficient for styles of music that are demanding in that area (due to the record grooves being physically to close to one another on most commercial releases). The records are also going to degrade a little bit further with every play (which of course is also true of tape).Vinyl has the POTENTIAL to sound great, but most records don't. Most people don't have a dust free environment to store their records in, velvet gloves to handle them with and a top of the line deck to play them back on .And CDs don't HAVE to sound "bad". If the source recording is HD and transferred using SBM or similar processes, the CD can sound quite beautiful.I can unequivocally state that my enjoyment of classical music went up considerably when the CD was introduced. Gone was the annoying distortion on fortissimo choir cum orchestra passages, the crackling which almost drowned out the pianissimi, and the CLICKS and POPS that would inevitably occur during the most delicate solos ...As far as the 10-15 year shelf life...this may be true for CDs you burn yourself, but my 20 year old store bought CDs play back just as well as they did when I first bought them...and sound exactly the same, after hundreds of spins, in some cases.These days it's quite fashionable to poo poo the CD...but I doubt few people TRULY miss the Vinyl Age, on the whole. I mean what good is "superior audio quality" if you can't hear the MUSIC thru all that snap, crackle and pop... .matto

slimcharm
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:41 am
Gender: Female
Location: Mellott
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by slimcharm » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:07 am

Nick,If I am in Protools for one session..and do a stereo bounce to disk ..are you saying that the next time I open that song I will have 1 file in Protools only? ie I will not have a file of the vocals AND a file of the music?I thought I would have the two files (music and vocals PLUS the conjoined stereo bounce)

User avatar
davewalton
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 4172
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:57 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by davewalton » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:01 am

Quote:Nick,If I am in Protools for one session..and do a stereo bounce to disk ..are you saying that the next time I open that song I will have 1 file in Protools only? ie I will not have a file of the vocals AND a file of the music?I thought I would have the two files (music and vocals PLUS the conjoined stereo bounce)Bouncing to, in the case, an interleaved stereo file on your desktop will have no effect on your original tracks. It's really a mixdown, where you're mixing down all your tracks into a single, stereo track. Everything stays the same.A "real world" equivalent might be something like making a single photograph from two different photographs. You could do that by using a copier and copying the two photographs to the same sheet of paper. You don't alter the original photographs, you just create a new piece of paper with both photos copied to it.

slimcharm
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:41 am
Gender: Female
Location: Mellott
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by slimcharm » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:06 am

Excellent analogy..thank you Dave! Now I get it.

ernstinen
Total Pro
Total Pro
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:59 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by ernstinen » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:15 am

Quote:Well, I'd agree it makes A difference, but enormous...? Cutting or boosting at a center frequency of 26k will have an effect to well below 20k unless the EQ is extremely narrow Q, which a mastering EQ wouldn't be.Well, Matto, normally I agree with you, but I have REALLY sensitive ears and the "opening up" of the sound seems to be an "enormous" difference to me --- maybe not to you.And a Massenburg E.Q. which I rent DOES have the capability of an extremely narrow Q at the highest frequencies. Ern

matto
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:02 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by matto » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:51 am

Quote:Quote:Well, I'd agree it makes A difference, but enormous...? Cutting or boosting at a center frequency of 26k will have an effect to well below 20k unless the EQ is extremely narrow Q, which a mastering EQ wouldn't be.Well, Matto, normally I agree with you, but I have REALLY sensitive ears and the "opening up" of the sound seems to be an "enormous" difference to me --- maybe not to you.And a Massenburg E.Q. which I rent DOES have the capability of an extremely narrow Q at the highest frequencies. ErnFair enough...it's all in the ear of the beholder. Just wanted to bring some perspective since this is a thread started by a recording novice and I think to most people an "enormous" difference is one they'd be able to hear on their car stereo while barrelling down the interstate.As far as the EQ, I was assuming normal mastering work...not scientific experiments... Btw I'm not endorsing technical mediocrity, I just wanna make sure slim doesn't get the impression that the only way Jessica's gonna have a chance to get signed is if her demos are recorded at 24/96 and pressed to vinyl!

nickbatzdorf
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by nickbatzdorf » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:53 pm

If you do hear 26kHz, Mr. Ernstinen, the levels up there are vanishingly low. It's not the high freqs you claim to hear that are responsible for the difference in sound, in my opinion. If that were all it was, you could use a 192kHz system and be happy.My guess is that it's the buttery tape compression that you like.

53mph
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by 53mph » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:08 am

Quote:These days it's quite fashionable to poo poo the CD...but I doubt few people TRULY miss the Vinyl Age, on the whole. I mean what good is "superior audio quality" if you can't hear the MUSIC thru all that snap, crackle and pop... .mattoI wasn't poo poo'ing the CD. I've moved house so many times in my life and my carry case of CD's is sooooo much more convenient than my boxes upon boxes of vinyl. The fact still remains though that the frequency range of Vinyl is higher than CD.In the UK we have lots of charity shops full of second hand vinyl from the 50's - 60's. Classical recordings on thick, hard vinyl. This type of vinyl lasts forever. It's hard to scratch and if you clean it before playing you don't have the snap crack and pop. Cheap vinyl suffers badly with age. Old 12"s start to sound like the music's being played whilst the musicians wander through piles of leaves. In the end it depends how well you look after your vinyl. The same applies to CD's though, especially with light and heat.I had to create an archive of Audio for my old company. We opted to archive everything on CD because it was cheaper (the companies decision, not mine). I would have opted for storing everything on Dat and then archiving these in a temperature and magnetic controlled enviroment.I discovered that Dat tapes from 10 years ago had started to deteriorate when left in boxes in an old store room. Cd's of Data information that were only 5-10 years old were corrupted because of excessive handling and bad storing.This is a real life situation, not a quote.For the home user this is not a huge issue, but there is a reason why the music industry does not archive their recordings on CD. Remember to handle your Pro Tools archives with care I will quote a source on CD archiving with CD-ROM/CD-R/CD-RW. Check out the wildly varying lifespans.....it's like a doctor saying "sorry, you only have between 2 days and 15 years to live.""CD-ROMs made when the technology was new in the early 1980s had problems with the protective lacquer coating not fully covering the disc. Aluminum can easily oxidize and when the lacquer did not cover the entire disc, the oxidation would eventually cause the disc to be unusable (except as a coaster). The early CD-ROMs also were labeled with inks that eventually reacted with the aluminum, which also caused the discs to fail. Fortunately, CD manufacturers realized what was happening and made changes in the manufacturing process to ensure better lacquer coverage, and stopped using chemically reactive dyes. (CD-Rs use metals such as gold that do not oxidize.) But there continue to be issues affecting the physical longevity of a CD. According to the technical pages of several CD manufacturers and trade associations, estimates vary widely as to the expected longevity of the media: CD-ROMs are estimated to last anywhere from 30 to 200 years.CD-Rs, before they are recorded, have an estimated shelf life of five to ten years.CD-Rs, after recording, are estimated to last between 70 and 200 years.CD-RWs are expected to last at least 30 years.Because CD technology is only about twenty years old (and recordable technology is younger than that), these expected life spans are estimates based on accelerated aging tests. As the testers at Kodak put it, chances are that if there is a significant error, the disc won’t work. Either it works or it doesn’t. How the discs are handled and stored can greatly affect their longevity. CD-Rs, with their dye layer, are especially prone to light. Leaving them on a desk can lessen the dye’s reactivity when passed through the recorder’s laser beam. The dye’s chemical state also makes for the shorter life span before they are recorded. As time goes on, the dye loses its ability to change from transparent to opaque. In other words, if you are only going to use one every six months, do not buy the 50-pack at your local warehouse club. CD-RWs have a similar problem with their alloy layer. After so many recordings and erasures, the alloy loses its ability to change from one state to another. This is estimated to occur around the 1,000th recording. There are many things that the user does that can shorten a disc’s life. Fingerprints and scratches are the most common. It is especially important that writable CDs not have fingerprints on them before they are written, as the fingerprint can scatter the laser beam from the recorder or weaken the ability of it to change the dye or alloy. In this case, the data can be jumbled or not be recorded at all—both of which can result in an unusable disc. Genealogists are becoming more aware of proper methods of writing on photographs and in scrapbooks, including using acid-free pens. The same advice should be heeded when labeling CDs. As noted previously, early CD-ROMs had inks in the labels that ate away at the disc. The same can happen if the user writes on a disc with a solvent-based marker. Water-based permanent markers are preferred. Ball-point pens should be avoided, as they can cause a scratch that shows through the reflective layer. For safest results, writing should be kept to the clear center portion of the disc. Stickers should be used only with the greatest of care. Labels that are applied off-center or with air bubbles and creases can cause the disc to spin out-of-balance. This is especially harmful in high-speed recorders and readers. Removing a label can also damage the disc’s surface, rendering it useless. Temperature can act upon the longevity of a CD. Several of the accelerated aging tests used 25ºC (77ºF) with 40 percent relative humidity as a baseline. Cooler, drier conditions should be beneficial. Conversely, warmer and damper conditions are a detriment. Wide fluctuations in these conditions are harmful. These conditions can occur when you leave discs in the back seat of your car in July."

nickbatzdorf
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by nickbatzdorf » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:21 am

I have maybe 350 records that I always cleaned with an anti-static brush, I never tracked at more than 1-1/2 grams, etc. And not one of them sounded the same after being played four times as it did new. Maybe the records from the '60s were better, but I bought most of mine in the '70s, so that doesn't help me.So I say the CD is a better format. If you like the sound of analog recording, record on tape and deal with the hassles. But then transfer it to CD. I couldn't care less about high freqs above 20K, but I would care about the limited dynamic range if we were forced to go back to vinyl. And mainly about the hassle, because it's not a very good format.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests